another forums that comment on RSAF
-
Actually, Both the F16 and the MIG29 are very capable. In terms of performance, the MIG29 may emerge victorious most of the time.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Even if the Migs were as good as the malaysiaas have said ,how many migs they have and how many F-16s we have?By the time they have fired their all missiles, they would find 20 or so F-16s tareting them.Besides,what is the range of a migs radar compared with that of the E2Cs.And furthurmore, our JF-16D could jam their radars from a long range, rendering their radars useless.
Why? The MIG29 is highky agile and can withstand very high Gs even with full load of weapons. Look at its wings and you will understand that the designer took effort on designing a strong, large and powerful airframe. Its wings is thick and wide, like the F15's. Its powered by 2 engines etc. These features allows it to perform the world-known Cobra manoeuvre. If you put an F16 and a MIG29 on a one-to-one combat, the MIG29 would win most of the time. I said most because this largely depends on the pilot. In a dogfight, the MIG29 can beat the F16 flat. But, the problem is that colse combat or dogfights willl never take place in the modern aerial warfare. What takes place is either you are fired before you can see your enemy or you fire at your enemy before you can see him. This capability needs a large radar, modern avionics and systems incorporated into the cocpit and of course, the weapon. If you take a look in the cockpit of the MIG29, you will see that the control panels are old, so old-fasioned that it looks like what you will see in the MIG15 of the Korean War! As for the F16C, you will see colour multi-mode displays, radar screen etc. If not in a colse combat situation, the F16C will emerge victorious. Why? Bigger radar, much bigger than the MIG29. Modern systems, equipments and avionics, ability to fire the AMRAAM which in fact, is a better missile than the Adder. If, with the help of the E2C, the range at which the AMRAAM can be fired to a target would even be greater.
The MIG29 is a design of the cold war, where close air combat is still the method of acheiving air victory, but when comes to the modern aerial awrfare, few can beat the F16C. -
just wanna say that looks can be decieving.
the MIG-29 malaysia got needs to reinforce its airframe just to carry the ADDER missile. if that frame is as strong as u said. obviously either that ADDER must weigh afew ton OR that frame aint as strong as it seems from the outside.
Secondly, in a dog fight, the falcon is more manoevrable, the MIG can do some fancy stunts like half cubic, full cubic and 'cobra'(aka dead sitting duck) move.
But all the above stupid manouver require specific pre-requisite to execute. u cant ask the MIG to do a half cubic when it is burning at mach 2, the pilot would just simply die in the cockpit after such a move.
lastly having a pair of huge engine has its plus and minus. the plus side is power, speed and probably a bit on agility. the down side is huge fuel consumption, double the cost of maintainace and shorter range (unless it carries more fuel) -
Take a look at the F16's wings when AMRAAM is on its wing tip. When the F16 is taxing on the runway, the wing would move up and down, i mean like hanging a bucket of water on a bamboo stick outside your kitchen. The wing looks like its gonna break.( not saying that it will break, juz sharing what i see wif ou guys)Originally posted by tripwire:just wanna say that looks can be decieving.
the MIG-29 malaysia got needs to reinforce its airframe just to carry the ADDER missile. if that frame is as strong as u said. obviously either that ADDER must weigh afew ton OR that frame aint as strong as it seems from the outside.
Secondly, in a dog fight, the falcon is more manoevrable, the MIG can do some fancy stunts like half cubic, full cubic and 'cobra'(aka dead sitting duck) move.
But all the above stupid manouver require specific pre-requisite to execute. u cant ask the MIG to do a half cubic when it is burning at mach 2, the pilot would just simply die in the cockpit after such a move.
lastly having a pair of huge engine has its plus and minus. the plus side is power, speed and probably a bit on agility. the down side is huge fuel consumption, double the cost of maintainace and shorter range (unless it carries more fuel) -
Thats why, I say get the Eurofighter 2000.With their superbed technology which outclass the F-16s and the migs,and with the special supercruise ability(the ability to fly at mach 1 without afterburners)it is fuel efficient and powerful.
---------------------------------------------
Anyway, about the Mig-29's special cobra or what so ever abilities, it would be useless if someone targeted you at long range.Guess the russians have been watching too much TOP GUN.
-
Take a look at the F16's wings when AMRAAM is on its wing tip. When the F16 is taxing on the runway, the wing would move up and down, i mean like hanging a bucket of water on a bamboo stick outside your kitchen. The wing looks like its gonna break.( not saying that it will break, juz sharing what i see wif ou guys)Originally posted by Patriotic Tim:[QUOTE]Originally posted by tripwire:
[b]just wanna say that looks can be decieving.
the MIG-29 malaysia got needs to reinforce its airframe just to carry the ADDER missile. if that frame is as strong as u said. obviously either that ADDER must weigh afew ton OR that frame aint as strong as it seems from the outside.
Secondly, in a dog fight, the falcon is more manoevrable, the MIG can do some fancy stunts like half cubic, full cubic and 'cobra'(aka dead sitting duck) move.
But all the above stupid manouver require specific pre-requisite to execute. u cant ask the MIG to do a half cubic when it is burning at mach 2, the pilot would just simply die in the cockpit after such a move.
lastly having a pair of huge engine has its plus and minus. the plus side is power, speed and probably a bit on agility. the down side is huge fuel consumption, double the cost of maintainace and shorter range (unless it carries more fuel)
[/B][/QUOTE]
as i said, looks can be decieving. looking at the spider's silk, who would believe that it is stronger then steel??
Secondly, i dont think any planes including the F-15 or F-14 or F-18 not to mention F-16 carries AMRAAM on its wing tip. the Weight of the AMRAAM limits the missile to be carried only in the mid wing and fuselage hardpoint.
Lastly, the materials used to construct the falcon is different from that use by the russians to build the fulcrum. the falcon uses composite carbon fibre which makes the plane lighter and stronger but with that bouncy look. but be not mistaken...it might appears bouncy, but the wing can hold up to more then 10G of strain.
Ever heard of the fulcrum pulling a 9G??? -
Originally posted by tripwire:
Now i understand that its the material tat is used makes the difference. But tripwire, USAF and other air forces did put AMRAAM on the wingtip of the F16C and D. It can be seen in almost every air force that has the AMRAAM. MIG29 pulling 9 Gs, can't it pull more than that?
as i said, looks can be decieving. looking at the spider's silk, who would believe that it is stronger then steel??
Secondly, i dont think any planes including the F-15 or F-14 or F-18 not to mention F-16 carries AMRAAM on its wing tip. the Weight of the AMRAAM limits the missile to be carried only in the mid wing and fuselage hardpoint.
Lastly, the materials used to construct the falcon is different from that use by the russians to build the fulcrum. the falcon uses composite carbon fibre which makes the plane lighter and stronger but with that bouncy look. but be not mistaken...it might appears bouncy, but the wing can hold up to more then 10G of strain.
Ever heard of the fulcrum pulling a 9G??? -
those air force dont put AMRAAM on the wingtip. its too heavy.Originally posted by Patriotic Tim:Now i understand that its the material tat is used makes the difference. But tripwire, USAF and other air forces did put AMRAAM on the wingtip of the F16C and D. It can be seen in almost every air force that has the AMRAAM. MIG29 pulling 9 Gs, can't it pull more than that?
I think what u saw was the ASRAAM on the wingtip, not AMRAAM.
you want a mig29 to pull more then 9 G??? you wanna see a wingless fulcrum isit?? -
but which airplane is actually the best in the world???? i wonder why singapore doesn't use those famous airplane such as the F-14 Tomcat n F/A18 hornets?? wonder y the malaysians like 2 use russian made products?
i mean.....singapore dun use them but malaysia dun use israeli's weapons like us.
i'm trying 2 imagine a dogfight scenario. if singapore buy the Eurofighter2000, den i tink malaysia will b veri uncomfortable.
they may complain or even start an arms race.
like....they are buying submarines coz they noe that singapore's submarines can cause great damage.
but i tink malaysia no money to upgrade its weapons,wat more buys new 1 -
F-14 is not for sale and it is awaiting retiring after several decades of service. To be replace by the F-18E/F super hornet and later on by JSF.Originally posted by MinisterOfDefence:but which airplane is actually the best in the world???? i wonder why singapore doesn't use those famous airplane such as the F-14 Tomcat n F/A18 hornets?? wonder y the malaysians like 2 use russian made products?
i mean.....singapore dun use them but malaysia dun use israeli's weapons like us.
i'm trying 2 imagine a dogfight scenario. if singapore buy the Eurofighter2000, den i tink malaysia will b veri uncomfortable.
they may complain or even start an arms race.
like....they are buying submarines coz they noe that singapore's submarines can cause great damage.
but i tink malaysia no money to upgrade its weapons,wat more buys new 1
F-18 got problem with limited range and weapon load, which is why the F-14 remain in service with the carriers despite the original intent to replace the F-14 with F-18. F-18 also got a slew of problem when used landbased, such as the undercarriage being to far back and this alone leads to quite a few crash on the runways.
F-18 furthermore does not have LANTIRN, Bubble canopy, HOTAS and HMS like the F-16s. In fact, the RSAF tried out the F-18 way back and decided to dump it in preference of the F-16.
F-18 is now filling the role of the A-6 intruder which is an attack aircraft.
the new F-18E/F super hornet will address all the problems currently associated with the the old hornets, such as having conformer fuel tanks to increase range and totally redesign the undercarriage to enable better handling when used land based. But the Super hornet WILL NOT BE ready until 2005 at the least.
The malaysians bought the MIGs for several reasons, but non of them are sound reason. Malaysia purchase the fulcrum on a half hard cash and half barter exchange basis as it is too poor to afford to pay for all the Fulcrum with cold cash, luckily the russians dont mind taking the rubber sheets, oil and palm oil as payments for the planes. so affordability is probably one of the main reason why malaysia bought the fulcrum.
Other western nation which are already overflowed with food and oil, onli wanted cold hard cash which malaysia dont have. -
I'm 100% sure its the AMRAAM. In fact, the AMRAAM is lighter than the AIM-7 Sparrow, i read it from Janes sources.Originally posted by tripwire:those air force dont put AMRAAM on the wingtip. its too heavy.
I think what u saw was the ASRAAM on the wingtip, not AMRAAM.
you want a mig29 to pull more then 9 G??? you wanna see a wingless fulcrum isit??
The F14, don't you think its too old even if the US did not want to retire it? But at least its Phoenix armanent is very good. The F/A18 coast twice as much as an F16. The overall performance differs but not alot. They are designed for about the same purposes. To switch immediately from air-to-air to ground attack mod but i think that the Hornet has greater payload than the Falcon. -
i still think u make a mistake, i seriously doubt AMRAAM can be carried on wingtip. what is the weight of the AMRAAM, tell me that and i will know immediately if the Falcon wingtip can carry it since i know the load factor of all the hardpoint.Originally posted by Patriotic Tim:I'm 100% sure its the AMRAAM. In fact, the AMRAAM is lighter than the AIM-7 Sparrow, i read it from Janes sources.
The F14, don't you think its too old even if the US did not want to retire it? But at least its Phoenix armanent is very good. The F/A18 coast twice as much as an F16. The overall performance differs but not alot. They are designed for about the same purposes. To switch immediately from air-to-air to ground attack mod but i think that the Hornet has greater payload than the Falcon.
Pheonix is good, no argument about that, at least the range is good.
hornet has better payload, but have much shorter range than falcon, unless it carries external fuel tanks, but if it carries external fuel tanks, its payload becomes less then the falcon.
IF the hornet is better, the USAF wouldnt have use the falcon and the USN wont be the only user of the hornet, but sadly, the falcon cant be launch from an aircraft carrier, so the navy is stuck with the hornet. -
Well, The USN once used the F16N Navy aggressors on the aircraft carrier, but i forget for what reason they abandoned it. Izit it true that the Hornet has lesser range than the Falcon? OkOK, lets stop arguing about the AMRAAM thing. Is the Frigate modeled like the US arsenal programme? The whole ship is sleek, low profile, stealth and the whole hull was packed with VL SSMs? Is there a possibility that cuise missile would be installed onto the frigate? I read a source and it says that the RSN is still building the MCV and another 8 is on building, which means that the total number of MCV would reach 14. Is it true?Originally posted by tripwire:i still think u make a mistake, i seriously doubt AMRAAM can be carried on wingtip. what is the weight of the AMRAAM, tell me that and i will know immediately if the Falcon wingtip can carry it since i know the load factor of all the hardpoint.
Pheonix is good, no argument about that, at least the range is good.
hornet has better payload, but have much shorter range than falcon, unless it carries external fuel tanks, but if it carries external fuel tanks, its payload becomes less then the falcon.
IF the hornet is better, the USAF wouldnt have use the falcon and the USN wont be the only user of the hornet, but sadly, the falcon cant be launch from an aircraft carrier, so the navy is stuck with the hornet. -
u are asking questions that no one even those who knew about RSN programme would dare tell u. at least not to someone over the net whom we arent even sure is a singaporean. even if u are a singaporean, u may not be under SAF, and even if u are in SAF, u may not have the security clearance for such information.Originally posted by Patriotic Tim:Well, The USN once used the F16N Navy aggressors on the aircraft carrier, but i forget for what reason they abandoned it. Izit it true that the Hornet has lesser range than the Falcon? OkOK, lets stop arguing about the AMRAAM thing. Is the Frigate modeled like the US arsenal programme? The whole ship is sleek, low profile, stealth and the whole hull was packed with VL SSMs? Is there a possibility that cuise missile would be installed onto the frigate? I read a source and it says that the RSN is still building the MCV and another 8 is on building, which means that the total number of MCV would reach 14. Is it true?
of course, if its already published or reported in the magazine, then it is fair game.
So far, the final design of the new stealth ship is not complete. but rumours or information from media sources indicates a similarity closely in resemblance to that of the USN arsenal ship.
as for the cruise missile thing, i think its too early to predict, though it is not beyond the realm of possibility.
As for RSN building more MCV, i think this may not be true. since RSN is currently concentrated on the new stealth vessel. -
Originally posted by tripwire:u are asking questions that no one even those who knew about RSN programme would dare tell u. at least not to someone over the net whom we arent even sure is a singaporean. even if u are a singaporean, u may not be under SAF, and even if u are in SAF, u may not have the security clearance for such information.
Well, becoz there are some people who reveals too much in here, so i might as well ask more lor. 1 battalion have how many Armoured Vehicls ar?
of course, if its already published or reported in the magazine, then it is fair game.
So far, the final design of the new stealth ship is not complete. but rumours or information from media sources indicates a similarity closely in resemblance to that of the USN arsenal ship.
as for the cruise missile thing, i think its too early to predict, though it is not beyond the realm of possibility.
As for RSN building more MCV, i think this may not be true. since RSN is currently concentrated on the new stealth vessel. -
Do you guys know any website where i can find pictures or information on British Warrior IFV and other IFVs around the world?
-
em... sorry to burst ur bubbles, but the F-16 CAN carry AMRAAMs on the wingtip. That would be a full intercept role, probably done by the USAF to intercept Bombers or something. Full Intercept would mean the F-16 would carry ALL AMRAAMs, but in Singapore, it would carry 4 AMRAAM n 2 AIM-9. Cos Distance would close fast, we don't want to be sitting ducks at knife fighting range do we?
-
Oh yeah, please don't confuse the Su-27 with the MiG-29. They ARE VERY different planes with very different capabilities. MiG-29s dont do the sitting duck move, SU-27s do.
-
i hope that u are right about wingtip AMRAAM. but it doesnt matter, we have the AMRAAM and we have the falcon, if the falcon can carry AMRAAM on the wingtip, so much the better.Originally posted by Shotgun:em... sorry to burst ur bubbles, but the F-16 CAN carry AMRAAMs on the wingtip. That would be a full intercept role, probably done by the USAF to intercept Bombers or something. Full Intercept would mean the F-16 would carry ALL AMRAAMs, but in Singapore, it would carry 4 AMRAAM n 2 AIM-9. Cos Distance would close fast, we don't want to be sitting ducks at knife fighting range do we?
BUT i dont think the falcon would be carrying AIM9 when RSAF have the Python 4.hehehehehee^_^ -
Oh... since python 4 is too heavy to be carried on wingtip, we can put the AMRAAM on the wingtip and the python on the inner hardpoints. ^_^Originally posted by tripwire:i hope that u are right about wingtip AMRAAM. but it doesnt matter, we have the AMRAAM and we have the falcon, if the falcon can carry AMRAAM on the wingtip, so much the better.
BUT i dont think the falcon would be carrying AIM9 when RSAF have the Python 4.hehehehehee^_^ -
I bought 'Defending the Lion City' and would like to ask those SAF officers out there weather those information are true. What is true and what is not? How reliable is his information in the number of weapons and equipments that SAF operates?
-
i have read the book. i must say that the account is fairly accurate. BUT unfortunately, as expected, the author also face a big obstacle in getting sensitive information from his sources. Most of the information he provided is equivalent to a compilation account of what has happened to SAF since its formation, most of it from official publications...just look at the thickness of the appendix on notes and u know what i mean.Originally posted by Patriotic Tim:I bought 'Defending the Lion City' and would like to ask those SAF officers out there weather those information are true. What is true and what is not? How reliable is his information in the number of weapons and equipments that SAF operates?
Although the author did tried his best to give us additional information about secret developement in the SAF and DSTA with respect to weapons and formations...understandably, such information are hard to confirm and even harder to deny.
One point i disagreed with the book was its short account on a possible war between singapore and malaysia with MAF as the foe and potentially involving indonesia.
The author claimed that SAF has continuously trained if not practised the possibility of a war against malaysia. while that may be true, it is doubtful that SAF would open a second front using Brunei as a spring board, In fact, i would even put forward the suggestion that in the event KL should fall under SAF onslaught, the indonesians might take the opportunity and occupied east malaysia totally, this obviously would result in turn singapore holding southern malaysia to counter the increase size of indonesia. In fact, even thailand might want a piece of malaysia northern lands if it see the MAF weakened and thrashed.
The author believed that SAF would attack the southern part of malaysia and make inland blitz attack up to 80km deep into johor and form the mersing line. the author believe that such a move would be beneficial to SAF in that :
1. it secures singapore's water supply
2. the defense line is close to singapore and can be easily supplied and reinforced in crisis.
3. that southern johor is less populated vis a vis melaka and KL which means less patrol problem.
4. most of singapore's economic investment is in southern Johor and thus protects singapore's economic interest.
5. that the 80km deep penetration prevents the malaysian arty from hitting singapore.
6 (my own opinion) wiped out the malaysian army southern command, leaving little more than 20,000 MAF soldier facing the 500,000 SAF soldier.
7. (my own opinion) with a foothold on malaysia, RSAF is now effectively within reach of KL, maleka, penang, ipoh and alor star, this would presumably force KL to the negotiating table OR.....ehhee, we can always drop a few encouraging FAEs over KL and IPOH(sadly, the FAEs would literary devastates KL and IPOH like hiroshima and nagasaki), alternatively, singapore might (as the author claimed) start a second front using brunei as the spring board and ... 'accidently' or 'unintentionally' results in the separation of east malaysia from peninsula malaysia into 2 different country.....hheheehee....
Upon establishing the mersing line, diplomatic solution would then be tabled in the international arena.
and to further enhance singapore's bargaining position, SAF has achieved (according to the author) the ability (or tenacity) to withstand a first blow from malaysia, this would make singapore the victim of the dispute rather then the aggressor and bring international favour on our side.(the author failed to point out that if malaysia is run by muslim fundamentalist, even if singapore throw the first punch, much of the western world would still be on our side ;> ).
But the flaw of this strategy is on the basis that malaysia would be forced to the negotiating table, in the event malaysia refuse to 'cooperate', then the total occupation of malaysia (possibly with thai assistance) may have to be considered unless singapore wants to end up fighting a border war for the remaining history of the state with disasterous consequence since malaysia does have more man then we can field. and we cant field our man on the front forever, so.... we need to go in, kill off all the malaysian resistance and its entire leadership, and encourage the division of malaysia into a dozen states.
Another problem is...in the event that malaysia is willing to go to the negotiation table, we will still need to hold southern johor forever....since goodwill and trust is no longer in existance. Singapore would then end up perpetually forever in a state of war.
So...in my view, holding the mersing line can only be considered as a long term plan after the war, when the dust has settled, but when the war is first started, it would be foolish to stop at mersing line, in fact, i feel that we should wipe out MAF, decimates malaysian economy and infrastructure and massacre its entire leadership structure. showing mercy to the enemy is the sure proven way of committing suicide.
Believing that malaysia would honor its new peace treaty with singapore is self-defeating, all these only results in giving malaysia breathing space, so that they can rebuild their military and come at us again and again and again....soon, singaporeans would be demoralised by continuous war and many would emigrate. SO the author's strategy is flawed in my opinion. I think the only way singapore can survived a post war with malaysia is ..... by ensuring that there is NO malaysia left after the war. -
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tripwire:
Thanx Tripwire. By the way, what is a Chukar target drone????? this is the major question mark in my brain. -
Yah right.And you think S'pore has so much man power to defeat the whole of malaysia in addition to the defense of S'pore.
-
NOT THINK. i dont do crystal ball gazing, iOriginally posted by CenturionMBT:Yah right.And you think S'pore has so much man power to defeat the whole of malaysia in addition to the defense of S'pore.
know...we CAN and WE WILL.
In fact... not only I known that SAF CAN... even malaysian former intelligience officer, a general, when interviewed... expressed without a doubt... that singapore SAF can even take out the entire MAF on a single day (which even i dont believe... but i dont work in the intelligience and definitely not an MAF general, if the MAF general could make such a public statement... it goes to show his concern for his country's pathetic millitary establishment)
Indonesian general too... has expressed concern about SAF's power projection capability... while beyond the region... it has not gone unnoticed by the super and regional powers.
BUT then.... along comes you who obviously is smarter then everyone else by think otherwise... hahaahahaaa.......Nevertheless.. it is good to have sceptics like you around. why?? then we can justify the need to convince you by buying even more weapon of greater lethality. in fact. if you are a malaysian.. then we must obtain even more destructive weapons and lay it in front of your door with a tag {wanna try SAF's might?}. -
Oh... i forgot to add this... ever notice that while many malaysian politicians and even their PM has always been seen bashing singapore... The malaysian ministry of defence from its defence minister to the generals (current or retired) has been much more prudent in their words... and when tensions goes hot... they always makes it clear that MAF dont want a war publicly... AND that singapore's water supply is at all time SAFE from tempering by any extremist.Originally posted by tripwire:NOT THINK. i dont do crystal ball gazing, i
know...we CAN and WE WILL.
In fact... not only I known that SAF CAN... even malaysian former intelligience officer, a general, when interviewed... expressed without a doubt... that singapore SAF can even take out the entire MAF on a single day (which even i dont believe... but i dont work in the intelligience and definitely not an MAF general, if the MAF general could make such a public statement... it goes to show his concern for his country's pathetic millitary establishment)
Indonesian general too... has expressed concern about SAF's power projection capability... while beyond the region... it has not gone unnoticed by the super and regional powers.
BUT then.... along comes you who obviously is smarter then everyone else by think otherwise... hahaahahaaa.......Nevertheless.. it is good to have sceptics like you around. why?? then we can justify the need to convince you by buying even more weapon of greater lethality. in fact. if you are a malaysian.. then we must obtain even more destructive weapons and lay it in front of your door with a tag {wanna try SAF's might?}.
hmmm.......seems to me.... the MAF have greater respect of SAF then that centurion....