another forums that comment on RSAF
-
30 SU-30..... and with this paltry force.... u wanna challenge RSAF????Originally posted by RMN-Best:stupid singaporean.... dont always read ur local newspaper.... hhahahah again.... why u guyz from singapore always wanna act smart??
we r smart enough to off set the purchase by our oil.... i know why stupid singaporean got so jealous... hhahaha coz, ur country got nothings... no water, no foods... hahaha we have AREADY sign the contract and its confirm that we will have another 16 su30 by the end of 2002... together with us, indonesian will be getting their 32 su30 as well. ours newspaer have also stated that, our intention were to have more then 30 su 30... hahahahahh stupid singaporean... ur stupid was so small... in long run... hahahaha i should see hoe u guyz gonna compete with us... use ur stupid brain and think ...... hahahahaha
how about this.... i give u 30 bananas and u go conquer thailand.... it should be no problem for such a smart kid like you.
hahahahaaaa...... -
So Malaysia had got noooooo hard cash, got to pay by oil. Aiyah, tell me lah. My dog is in heat, come and get f**k by it. I'll give you ten Singapore dollars, that's more than twice your currency. Well at least you could use these cash for your SU-30s.Originally posted by RMN-Best:stupid singaporean.... dont always read ur local newspaper.... hhahahah again.... why u guyz from singapore always wanna act smart??
we r smart enough to off set the purchase by our oil.... i know why stupid singaporean got so jealous... hhahaha coz, ur country got nothings... no water, no foods... hahaha we have AREADY sign the contract and its confirm that we will have another 16 su30 by the end of 2002... together with us, indonesian will be getting their 32 su30 as well. ours newspaer have also stated that, our intention were to have more then 30 su 30... hahahahahh stupid singaporean... ur stupid was so small... in long run... hahahaha i should see hoe u guyz gonna compete with us... use ur stupid brain and think ...... hahahahaha
Singapore had been a leader in arms and military hardwares. Go buy your Su-30s, and don't get jealous if we buy Su-37s or F-22s Singapore needs to protect your ass from getting misused.
"Analysts points to Malaysia's decision to operate three new types of aircraft-- F-18, Mig-29, Hawk200-- from the United States, Russia and Britain respectively
According to report in the US army war college's journal published last year, this move created training, logistical, cost, maintenance and operational problems, with the consequence of low availability of its aircraft well into the future.
Malaysia operates 94 combat aircrafts now, while Singapore has 139, according to the london-based International Institude for Strategic Studies in its publication, The Military Balance 1997/98
The US Army College journal report drew a conclusion 'Except for Singapore, the billions of dollars spent by countries of ASEAN to purchase sophiscated weaponary has not translated into competent military organisation.
The same report rated the Singapore Armed Forces the best in the region, giving it top marks in every area --equipment, personnel, training, tactics and overall readiness.
Its assessment: The SAF is cleary acpable of protecting Singapore's interest however it chooses to define it. (It means we can conquer and destroy!)
Mr Robert Karniol, the asia-pacific editor of Janes Defence Weekly concurred. Although SAF is not battle tested, he said: The SAF remains the strongest military force in the region. "Malaysia is not in the SAME category... (HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. What a insult!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ....................)
With Singapore, it has not been just a numbers game as its defence spending has also helped nuture a defence industry which has allowed it to acquire sohphiscated ship building and aircraft-upgrading expertise, which is now being exported as well, noted a foreign diplomat.
How, now you piece of low life, idiotic, pig shit maggot! Jealous hah?
Oh, do you know that Migs and Sukhios are cheap enough for Malaysia to buy?
No money, don't talk so much lah. -
Yeah Sure, u can say quantity (30 God Almighty Su-30s) has a quality of its own. But we got both QUANTITY AND QUALITY! So why don't you take a banana and shove it up your monkey ass rather than run rampant around here like a spoilt kid. Take up the tour by offered by MinisterOfDefence, after that I take you tour Changi Prison. You'd be begging to stay in there than to go back Malaysia.
Su-30? WHat is that? Can eat one? Your planes will probably get scattered over JB before they even know what happens. Sure, they are gonna demonstrate to you Dumbasses the mighty Su-35 and Su-37, but remember, you guys are getting an Su-30, NOT Su-35. In anycase, unless you guys go train with the TopGun of United States, I doubt your RMAF pilots will survive an engagement. -
according to the latest THE MILITARY BALANCE.. singapore RSAF have 91 F-16!!! its fixed wing combat fighters is already 153... while malaysia is 84...Originally posted by hardware:So Malaysia had got noooooo hard cash, got to pay by oil. Aiyah, tell me lah. My dog is in heat, come and get f**k by it. I'll give you ten Singapore dollars, that's more than twice your currency. Well at least you could use these cash for your SU-30s.
Singapore had been a leader in arms and military hardwares. Go buy your Su-30s, and don't get jealous if we buy Su-37s or F-22s Singapore needs to protect your ass from getting misused.
"Analysts points to Malaysia's decision to operate three new types of aircraft-- F-18, Mig-29, Hawk200-- from the United States, Russia and Britain respectively
According to report in the US army war college's journal published last year, this move created training, logistical, cost, maintenance and operational problems, with the consequence of low availability of its aircraft well into the future.
Malaysia operates 94 combat aircrafts now, while Singapore has 139, according to the london-based International Institude for Strategic Studies in its publication, The Military Balance 1997/98
The US Army College journal report drew a conclusion 'Except for Singapore, the billions of dollars spent by countries of ASEAN to purchase sophiscated weaponary has not translated into competent military organisation.
The same report rated the Singapore Armed Forces the best in the region, giving it top marks in every area --equipment, personnel, training, tactics and overall readiness.
Its assessment: The SAF is cleary acpable of protecting Singapore's interest however it chooses to define it. (It means we can conquer and destroy!)
Mr Robert Karniol, the asia-pacific editor of Janes Defence Weekly concurred. Although SAF is not battle tested, he said: The SAF remains the strongest military force in the region. "Malaysia is not in the SAME category... (HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. What a insult!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ....................)
With Singapore, it has not been just a numbers game as its defence spending has also helped nuture a defence industry which has allowed it to acquire sohphiscated ship building and aircraft-upgrading expertise, which is now being exported as well, noted a foreign diplomat.
How, now you piece of low life, idiotic, pig shit maggot! Jealous hah?
Oh, do you know that Migs and Sukhios are cheap enough for Malaysia to buy?
No money, don't talk so much lah.
this book however do not take into account... the differences in the tech level of the weapons... simply numbers only... as a result... phillipine is top with armed helo... -
Funny how the numbers increase like that.
-
Here it happen again. There are some comparison in superiority between M'sia Mig-29 & S'pore F-16 in another forum. Below is the URL:
http://users3.cgiforme.com/javad/cfmboard.html
Anyone think it's true? -
just to share some of my tots....
the MIG-29 may be capable of doing a 'cobra' etc, but its the pilot who sits in it who execute the move.... and that takes lots of training, practice, and skillz.... not something an average or even above ave pilot can do...IMHO
besides, those moves are just to show (off) what an aircraft is capable of, when it comes to real combat, such moves are mostly useless. some may argue that it will give u advantage when in a dogfight, but IMO, one will be to preoccupied to really have the time and concentration to execute such moves. :p
[This message has been edited by token ring (edited 21 October 2001).] -
Its not that hard actually. Also, the cobra maneuver can be used confuse radar tracking from awacs.
-
I think you are wrong. The cobra manoeuvre is indeed not easy for a normal pilot to achieve but if there is enough training, any particular MIG29 pilot can do it. This manoeuvre Russian, so Russian pilots must know how to do it. In a dogfight, it is extremely useful.Originally posted by token ring:just to share some of my tots....
the MIG-29 may be capable of doing a 'cobra' etc, but its the pilot who sits in it who execute the move.... and that takes lots of training, practice, and skillz.... not something an average or even above ave pilot can do...IMHO
besides, those moves are just to show (off) what an aircraft is capable of, when it comes to real combat, such moves are mostly useless. some may argue that it will give u advantage when in a dogfight, but IMO, one will be to preoccupied to really have the time and concentration to execute such moves. :p
[This message has been edited by token ring (edited 21 October 2001).]
Imagine you are a pilot of lets say... an F16C and you are on the six of a MIG29(of any model). Suddenly, the MIG pulled up and an experienced pilot would not follow suit. Not because your falcon is not agile enough but your jet which is going at speed of 3 times the fulcrum will crash into the Fulcrum. Why? because when a cobra manoeuvre is put up, the MIG pilot will pull up but at that split seconds, the pilot decreased his throttle to the lowest. That will make the MIG stay nose up, stay still at that position for about 3-4 seconds and then due to gravitational pull, the nose of the fulcrum will head almost vertically down. An experienced MIG pilot will know that he must not immediately pull up as it will cause him to blackout. When the MIG suck in enough air into its intake, the pilot will know when to go to full throttle again. This will give the MIG an advantage as it will be at the six of the F16C which had passed below him but if the F16C pilot is alert and intelligent enough, he will bank away before the MIG can get at his six as the time needed for the MIG to start its throttle takes some time. If possible and quick enough, the F16C can get back at the MIG's tail again. So, the Cobra manoeuvre would be a good evasive action and to escape from being hit by gun. I think tohse who know the cobra manouevre would agree with me that the cobra manoeuvre is better used as an evasive action. -
cobra manouver is called a dead duck manouver...Originally posted by Patriotic Tim:I think you are wrong. The cobra manoeuvre is indeed not easy for a normal pilot to achieve but if there is enough training, any particular MIG29 pilot can do it. This manoeuvre Russian, so Russian pilots must know how to do it. In a dogfight, it is extremely useful.
Imagine you are a pilot of lets say... an F16C and you are on the six of a MIG29(of any model). Suddenly, the MIG pulled up and an experienced pilot would not follow suit. Not because your falcon is not agile enough but your jet which is going at speed of 3 times the fulcrum will crash into the Fulcrum. Why? because when a cobra manoeuvre is put up, the MIG pilot will pull up but at that split seconds, the pilot decreased his throttle to the lowest. That will make the MIG stay nose up, stay still at that position for about 3-4 seconds and then due to gravitational pull, the nose of the fulcrum will head almost vertically down. An experienced MIG pilot will know that he must not immediately pull up as it will cause him to blackout. When the MIG suck in enough air into its intake, the pilot will know when to go to full throttle again. This will give the MIG an advantage as it will be at the six of the F16C which had passed below him but if the F16C pilot is alert and intelligent enough, he will bank away before the MIG can get at his six as the time needed for the MIG to start its throttle takes some time. If possible and quick enough, the F16C can get back at the MIG's tail again. So, the Cobra manoeuvre would be a good evasive action and to escape from being hit by gun. I think tohse who know the cobra manouevre would agree with me that the cobra manoeuvre is better used as an evasive action.
at a high speed chase with a falcon on its tail...... hehehee...
if the fulcrum is BVR missile envelope... the cobra manouver would create a great radar signature or radar guided missile...
if the fulcrum is WVR missile envelope... the high speed of the falcon would quickly bring the fulcrum to within gun range... the falcon only need to slow down... aim gun at the sitting duck and blast the fulcrum to cobrala.....
if the 2 planes are within gun range.... the falcon would be splattering bullets all over the fulcrum.... where got time to execute cobra move??? furthermore... if the 2 planes are really close to one another... a cobra move would see both planes kissing in the air.... in passion of explosion....
BUT would a pursuing falcon fly so close to a MIG??? knowing well in advance of the cobra move??
Would a fulcrum allow an enemy plane fly so close to his ass with a vulcun machine gun??/
as for confusing the AWAC with cobra move..... i doubt it is of much use unless that fulcrum can cobra all the way to its destination...... furthermore... a funny radar signature would surely attract attention from AWAC crew...... -
Really, the cobra maneuvre is just a crowd-pleasing maneuvre for air-shows, thats all. In combat, energy is life. In using the cobra, the pilot sacrifices all the planes energy in return for 1 shot, which die die also must kill his target. If not, he will be a dead duck, as his plane will not be able to recover in time. Also, this is a hypothetical situation where its a 1V1 situation. if the enemy has a wingman, he's a dead duck, totally, absolutely. Even the Russians acknowledge this.
However, they said that the cobra-maneuver was not intended for close combat. Rather, it is to be used to deceive the AWACS radar by taking advantage of the weakness of the doppler effect. two flights of aircraft flying very close together would approach the AWACS, and one flight would execute this maneuvre, causing the AWACS to lose track of that particular flight, while holding track on the other flight proceeding towards the AWACS. The flight which executed the cobra would then dive for the deck and hopefully the AWACS would not track them in the ground-clutter. They would then race to the AWACS to finish it off. -
i think tripwire said it all.
and, yes, i have also seen the move being executed, on video lah. :p
also, to add to my point, imagine say I am a MIG pilot, i execute the move, my enemy, during that few seconds, would have passed me, and it could have banked left/right, dived or perform any manouvre it wants to, but for me, I would not have a visual of him cos it would be in my blind spots due to my 'cobra' position, plus, my aircraft is literally at a standstill, even to get out of the 'cobra' position, will take me at least another few seconds, and by the time i recover, i don't think my opponent is so foolish as to continue flying straight for me to chase after, and i'm not going to fool myself to think that the enemy hasn't seen or know about the much talk about move which i just did! So, to me, i definitely will feel that my 'cobra' has just turned into a 'sitting duck'
hehe, sorly arh, my england not so powderful lah, took me so many words to state a single point, but i think u get the idea lar. -
AWACS fly damn high and has a very long scanning range....Originally posted by YourFather:Really, the cobra maneuvre is just a crowd-pleasing maneuvre for air-shows, thats all. In combat, energy is life. In using the cobra, the pilot sacrifices all the planes energy in return for 1 shot, which die die also must kill his target. If not, he will be a dead duck, as his plane will not be able to recover in time. Also, this is a hypothetical situation where its a 1V1 situation. if the enemy has a wingman, he's a dead duck, totally, absolutely. Even the Russians acknowledge this.
However, they said that the cobra-maneuver was not intended for close combat. Rather, it is to be used to deceive the AWACS radar by taking advantage of the weakness of the doppler effect. two flights of aircraft flying very close together would approach the AWACS, and one flight would execute this maneuvre, causing the AWACS to lose track of that particular flight, while holding track on the other flight proceeding towards the AWACS. The flight which executed the cobra would then dive for the deck and hopefully the AWACS would not track them in the ground-clutter. They would then race to the AWACS to finish it off.
true that 2 plane flying close could end up being mapped as a single blip on the radar... but everyone knows that....
In fact... upon confirmation of potential intruder... fighters would have been launch to intercept and investigate the bogey radar blip....
And no AWACS will allow any unidentified aircraft from getting near it... including the AWACS fighter escort will see to that... once an UFA reach within a certain distance from the AWACS... it is automatically considered as hostile unless it can ID itself...
that idea the russian came up with if bullshit....
if the ground clutter can supposedly cover the radar signal of an approaching fulcrum... why dont the 2 fulcrum starts out by doing NOE???
obviously this isnt gonna work... becos AWACS are designed to specifically to pick up such NOE intruders which would be invisible to ground base radar....
And even if the fulcrum managed somehow to fly towards the AWACS... in order to attack it... the fulcrum needs to gain altitude since AWACS usually works in high altitude... the minute the fulcrum break off NOE.. it will be detected by the AWACS... once the fulcrum reach about certain height... even the ground radar can detect it...
time to rock.... -
Patriotic Tim, I think you watch too much Top Gun liao. You're probably thinking about the "I'll pop the brakes and He'll fly right by....." Sorry, but that does not exist in close air combat.
There are a lot of pre-requisites to enter the cobra maneuver. The plane must first fly STRAIGHT at a speed of 350mph. To fly straight in close combat will almost guarantee you dead. Then the MiG-29 or Su-27 must pitch up above 90 degrees, thus offering a bigger target to shoot at. When the aircraft recovers from the cobra maneuver, it will stagger around 280mph, near stall speed, forbiding the aircraft from anymore evasive manuever.
If I was a pilot behind the MiG-29, I'd take a missile shot when he starts running straight. If he's caught attempting the cobra, he'd be caught like a dead duck without a chance to evade. (You cannot turn in a cobra, or risk entering a steep spin). -
I think the cobra is kinda confused with a similar manuever. I forgot the name but this is how it goes.
The flanker first enters a steep climb, 90 degrees vertical. Once that is established, cuts the engines down to idle, slowing the climb. It will reach a point where there is not enough thrust to climb, and it actually slides back down on its tail. The nose dips, heading down towards the ground, re-engaging the engines back to full military.
This maneuver can be used to temporarily confuse a tracking AWACs. They might think that the aircraft stalled while attemptin to climb.
However, the point in all this, is not demonstrating how the manuevers are useful in combat. But rather, how the aircraft can withstand high angles of attack without stalling. This allows the aircraft to turn tighter at lower airspeeds.
TVC aside, most western aircraft can only turn at a certain rate. The F-16 bein one that can turn the fastest, with minimal loss of airspeed. Once the limit is reached, the F-16 cannot continue to increase its turn rate without runnin the risk of losing all its airspeed and stalling. The Su-27 and the MiG-29 were designed to push the limit. The had high AOA tolerances, to allow to push the turn rate beyond the limits of conventional aircraft, without stalling.
If you were an F-16 pilot, looking back, u will suddenly realise the flanker managed to actually "OUT TURN" you beyond the physics of conventional flight. This being a normal sustained turning flight. Combined with a simple High G Yo Yo, the flanker can almost out turn the F-16 easily. ( of course, the F-16 pilot can counter with a High-G Yoyo of his own.)
[This message has been edited by Shotgun (edited 23 October 2001).] -
Just like to point out some non-factual comments here....Originally posted by tripwire:Malaysai thinks that its mig got HMS very shiok, can have wide 45 degree cone of firing. tell the malaysai go home makan pisang. tell them RSAF F-16 also got HMS with python-4 that has a firing cone of 60 degree and with a 2 hit flight programe. plus AVEN vector thrust engine that boost the most agile fighter in the world (F-16 not fulcrum) a further 30 percent increase in agility. Tell them that RSAF F-16 got LANTIRN that enables our falcons to bomb malaysai all night long while their fulcrum like all the kuku birds of malaysai, cannot do night combat and is pitifully dependent on fly by instrument if they wish to die in a night fight.
Tell them too, that RSAF falcons are wild weasels, combined with the best EW suit from US and Isreal. tell them too that RSAF now has 3 times more falcons than they have fulcrums, all pilots trained in US of A. Tell them we have KC135R that can send our falcons all the way to perlis and bomb their banana tree if we so desire.
1. RSAF F-16C/D jets would most likely not have the AVEN thrust vectoring system. The AVEN is only tested on the GE F110 engine and not the PW F100-229 engine that the RSAF F-16 (Block 52) jets have.
2. Unconfirmed reports that RSAF have obtained Rafael Python-4 missiles with associated HMS, but this remain unconfirmed. Pictures that I have seen does not indicate that the F-16s are modifed to incorporated with the HMS (most likely Israeli DASH 3 helmet sight). The telltale sign that one is equipped with the HMS system is when you see the magnetic sensor attached onto the canopy of the jet and a wire connecting to the sensor all the way from the back seat. This is evidence in Israeli AF F-16 and F-15Es but not in RSAF F-16C/D or F5S.
3. RSAF F-16s are most likely not 100% Wild Weasal capable yet eventhough they are reported (F-16D with the dorsal spine) to carry Israeli made ECM equipments to do the job. This is purely spectulation, until RSAF can confirm (which I doubt so). No evidence that RSAF have bought HARM. Reports indicated that RSAF does have Strike AGM-45, but I doubt the HARMs are already in the inventory. ARM-88 requires the block 50 aircrafts to equip with the Harm pod (where LANTRIN pods are usually carried). No evidence of RSAF having one.
Of course, I am just pointing out the obvious. I guess we all would like to see RSAF having this and that, but the truth is, even if they do, they would not admit to it. I doubt we can all believe in the unconfirmed reports. RSAF is indeed looking at quite a wide range of weapon systems, but looking at them does not mean that they already have got them. -
Sorry to burst your bubbles. But RSAF Vipers definitely have Python4s. As for the ECM equipment, nobody will know for sure, other than the pilots and WSOs.
I can't tell you why you don't see the magnetic sensors, but all I can say is that the RSAF is more advanced than you can imagine. RSAF F-16s may have already included features that have only come with the F-16 Block60. =P
Also, the RSAF has supposedly acquired Alto/Derby Medium ranged missiles from Rafael. And please be reminded, that the HARM is not the only SEAD missile in the market. -
Fwah, you make it sound as if the RSAF's capability is in the order of magnitude more capable than anyone imagine.... where did you get the info that Singapore allegedly acquired the Derby? I've wondered for quite some time, and really, the more we talk, the more it seems like we have every weapon in the Israeli inventory.... cant be, right?
Also, on anti-radiation missiles, the only ones worth mentioning are other than the HARM are the ALARM and the Russian KH-31P... so.... dont tell me we got those??? -
Well, it is good to know that you have spotted the magnetic sensors on the canopy. Perhaps you can point us to any websites that contains images of RSAF Vipers that are equipped with the sensors. The Vipers pics that I have come across so far (including those in Canon and Luke AFB) do not seem to have the sensors attached. Perhaps I need to update myself....Originally posted by Shotgun:Sorry to burst your bubbles. But RSAF Vipers definitely have Python4s. As for the ECM equipment, nobody will know for sure, other than the pilots and WSOs.
I can't tell you why you don't see the magnetic sensors, but all I can say is that the RSAF is more advanced than you can imagine. RSAF F-16s may have already included features that have only come with the F-16 Block60. =P
Also, the RSAF has supposedly acquired Alto/Derby Medium ranged missiles from Rafael. And please be reminded, that the HARM is not the only SEAD missile in the market.
Well, I would love to see any pics. It most likely confirmed that RSAF Vipers do indeed carry Python-4 then... I would be even more trilled if RSAF start looking at AIM-9X more seriously to complement the Pythons.
As for the anti-radiation missile issues, I read some unconfirmed report (probably from Flight Internation magazine - don't quite remember) that RSAF might have bought Israeli made anti-radiation glide bombs to supplement the ageing AGM-45 Strike. Hope RSAF will also look at ARM-88 HARM though. It is a good missile to have (make loud political noise to tell potential enemy don't play play... )
As for your Block 60 comment... the only thing RSAF Vipers have on the Block 60 are the colour MFDs. In fact the Block 50 vipers are more like Block 50+ that the Greek and Israeli AFs bought.
Block 60 Vipers differ in the area of CFT and internal FLIRs and targeting devices rather than carrying the LANTRIN pods.
Lastly, any idea what RSAF is going to do with the Block 15 Vipers???? Maybe upgrade them to the MLU, ADF or even the IAI Ace or ST upgrade (whatever they call it) versions? -
Originally posted by Joe Black:Just like to point out some non-factual comments here....
1. RSAF F-16C/D jets would most likely not have the AVEN thrust vectoring system. The AVEN is only tested on the GE F110 engine and not the PW F100-229 engine that the RSAF F-16 (Block 52) jets have.
*** Pardon me... but i know RSAF have at least 10 such aircraft..... how i know... i cant tell....
2. Unconfirmed reports that RSAF have obtained Rafael Python-4 missiles with associated HMS, but this remain unconfirmed. Pictures that I have seen does not indicate that the F-16s are modifed to incorporated with the HMS (most likely Israeli DASH 3 helmet sight). The telltale sign that one is equipped with the HMS system is when you see the magnetic sensor attached onto the canopy of the jet and a wire connecting to the sensor all the way from the back seat. This is evidence in Israeli AF F-16 and F-15Es but not in RSAF F-16C/D or F5S.
*** Python 4 need not have HMS to be usable... in fact... Python 4 can be used without HMS.... but i am not saying if all the falcons dont have HMS.... in fact... RSAF could just put a few photo for media consumption while hiding the rest behind canopy....
3. RSAF F-16s are most likely not 100% Wild Weasal capable yet eventhough they are reported (F-16D with the dorsal spine) to carry Israeli made ECM equipments to do the job. This is purely spectulation, until RSAF can confirm (which I doubt so). No evidence that RSAF have bought HARM. Reports indicated that RSAF does have Strike AGM-45, but I doubt the HARMs are already in the inventory. ARM-88 requires the block 50 aircrafts to equip with the Harm pod (where LANTRIN pods are usually carried). No evidence of RSAF having one.
*** what u are trying to say is that.... you doubt RSAF have all these stuff.... BUT IN TRUTH.... YOU DONT KNOW....
Of course, I am just pointing out the obvious. I guess we all would like to see RSAF having this and that, but the truth is, even if they do, they would not admit to it. I doubt we can all believe in the unconfirmed reports. RSAF is indeed looking at quite a wide range of weapon systems, but looking at them does not mean that they already have got them.
*** Dont seem that obvious to me... if something is that obvious... so much for military secret.... Tell us... have you inspected all the Falcons and the weapons storage facility to make such an assumption...??? -
Originally posted by tripwire:
I am definitely surprised to hear this as I have discussed this with a number of experts in the rec.avaiation.military newsgroups and nobody seems to be able to confirm that a thrust vector Viper exists in any AF todays (definitely not heard of in USAF). Thus for Singapore to venture this alone is pretty unprecedented given RSAF prudent track record of select equipment only after they are fully tested and used by quite a few operators for at least a substantial period of time. This is evidence in all their military hardware purchases.
1. RSAF F-16C/D jets would most likely not have the AVEN thrust vectoring system. The AVEN is only tested on the GE F110 engine and not the PW F100-229 engine that the RSAF F-16 (Block 52) jets have.
*** Pardon me... but i know RSAF have at least 10 such aircraft..... how i know... i cant tell....
Not to say that you are wrong. I am sure that RSAF have many things that the general public are not aware of. I have heard a few "things" from RSAF pilots themselves.
True that the Python 4 does not necessary need the HMS, but it serves no point to have the Python 4 without HMS. The whole benefit of having a high off-boresight angle missiles like Python 4 is that the Off-boresight angle is achieved through pilots "looking" at the target rather than locking on by the radars/HUDs.
2. Unconfirmed reports that RSAF have obtained Rafael Python-4 missiles with associated HMS, but this remain unconfirmed. Pictures that I have seen does not indicate that the F-16s are modifed to incorporated with the HMS (most likely Israeli DASH 3 helmet sight). The telltale sign that one is equipped with the HMS system is when you see the magnetic sensor attached onto the canopy of the jet and a wire connecting to the sensor all the way from the back seat. This is evidence in Israeli AF F-16 and F-15Es but not in RSAF F-16C/D or F5S.
*** Python 4 need not have HMS to be usable... in fact... Python 4 can be used without HMS.... but i am not saying if all the falcons dont have HMS.... in fact... RSAF could just put a few photo for media consumption while hiding the rest behind canopy....
I do however believe that RSAF already have Python 4 in its inventory. How many missiles and which aircrafts have got them is a big question. I haven't seen hard evidence yet, but I will assumed that F-5S and F-16s are most likely the receipents of such missiles.
As for the Derby/Alto missiles... that I don't know... Singapore likes Israeli made toys but I don't think buying Derby may be such as smart move given that RSAF already have sparrows and AMRAAMs.
I am saying that I doubt RSAF have ARM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles. I know they have some other anti-radiation weapons for the SEAD Vipers (DJs). I am just not sure that Singapore is being approved to purchase HARMs. US have a very funny policy of not wanting the regional countries to have certain weapons until the neighbouring countries have similar weapons thru other parties such as the Europeans or Russians.
3. RSAF F-16s are most likely not 100% Wild Weasal capable yet eventhough they are reported (F-16D with the dorsal spine) to carry Israeli made ECM equipments to do the job. This is purely spectulation, until RSAF can confirm (which I doubt so). No evidence that RSAF have bought HARM. Reports indicated that RSAF does have Strike AGM-45, but I doubt the HARMs are already in the inventory. ARM-88 requires the block 50 aircrafts to equip with the Harm pod (where LANTRIN pods are usually carried). No evidence of RSAF having one.
*** what u are trying to say is that.... you doubt RSAF have all these stuff.... BUT IN TRUTH.... YOU DONT KNOW....
Hey tripwire, not trying to flame anyone's words, but I am making comments base on hard evidence. I don't think we can boast too much about what RSAF have or don't have, especially the hush hush stuffs. RSAF is very capable. I have read about their capabilities, I have spoken to some pilot friends, technicans (I even have a relative who works in RSAF as a technican attached to a F-16 sqn in the US).
*** Dont seem that obvious to me... if something is that obvious... so much for military secret.... Tell us... have you inspected all the Falcons and the weapons storage facility to make such an assumption...???
[/b]
I am aware that my knowledge is limited and who like to hear from people who knows more, but have hard concrete evidence (either seeing the stuffs themselves or know of some RSAF personal who have seen or use the weapons). -
Those that you saw based in the US are probably the least upgraded. Due to the fact that they are based in the US. Its the ones that are based locally that have the works.Originally posted by Joe Black:Well, it is good to know that you have spotted the magnetic sensors on the canopy. Perhaps you can point us to any websites that contains images of RSAF Vipers that are equipped with the sensors. The Vipers pics that I have come across so far (including those in Canon and Luke AFB) do not seem to have the sensors attached. Perhaps I need to update myself....
Well, I would love to see any pics. It most likely confirmed that RSAF Vipers do indeed carry Python-4 then... I would be even more trilled if RSAF start looking at AIM-9X more seriously to complement the Pythons.
As for the anti-radiation missile issues, I read some unconfirmed report (probably from Flight Internation magazine - don't quite remember) that RSAF might have bought Israeli made anti-radiation glide bombs to supplement the ageing AGM-45 Strike. Hope RSAF will also look at ARM-88 HARM though. It is a good missile to have (make loud political noise to tell potential enemy don't play play... )
As for your Block 60 comment... the only thing RSAF Vipers have on the Block 60 are the colour MFDs. In fact the Block 50 vipers are more like Block 50+ that the Greek and Israeli AFs bought.
Block 60 Vipers differ in the area of CFT and internal FLIRs and targeting devices rather than carrying the LANTRIN pods.
Lastly, any idea what RSAF is going to do with the Block 15 Vipers???? Maybe upgrade them to the MLU, ADF or even the IAI Ace or ST upgrade (whatever they call it) versions?
In anycase, RSAF has always been smart to hide their works. Pictures are often passed through censors to make sure no military secrets are revealed.
Actually, I think the RSAF will be acquiring BAe ALARMs rather than HARMs. It would probably be a deal together with the Typhoons ordered.
The most important feature in the F-16Block60 is not the color MFD. But something to do with the glass canopy. Can't tell you further. -
Oh btw, the Block 15s will be traded in for additional Block 50/52s.
-
"The 10 F-16D Block 52 aircraft ordered in 1994 have the same dorsal fairing as the Israeli IF-16D and the sole VISTA aircraft. It is rumored to house the SPS-3000 EW suite. The dorsal spine in all type versions of Israeli (4K-CK), Singapore (DB) and the VISTA test bed aircraft were designed, mocked up, fabricated and installed during regular routine assembly while these aircraft were on the production line in Ft. Worth.
It is rumored that the Israeli's have provided the RSAF with a first batch of short-range IR-guided Python 4 missiles.
In view of neighboring Malaysia upgrading its MiG-29s allowing integration of the Vympel R-77 AR-homing AAM, Singapore will probably apply for the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Previous requests for the AIM-120 by Singapore and other countries in the region were turned down by the US government until a similar system was introduced in the region. " F-16.net
Tripwire, i think you mistook the AVEN for the VISTA. -
"The 10 F-16D Block 52 aircraft ordered in 1994 have the same dorsal fairing as the Israeli IF-16D and the sole VISTA aircraft. It is rumored to house the SPS-3000 EW suite. The dorsal spine in all type versions of Israeli (4K-CK), Singapore (DB) and the VISTA test bed aircraft were designed, mocked up, fabricated and installed during regular routine assembly while these aircraft were on the production line in Ft. Worth.
It is rumored that the Israeli's have provided the RSAF with a first batch of short-range IR-guided Python 4 missiles.
In view of neighboring Malaysia upgrading its MiG-29s allowing integration of the Vympel R-77 AR-homing AAM, Singapore will probably apply for the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Previous requests for the AIM-120 by Singapore and other countries in the region were turned down by the US government until a similar system was introduced in the region. " F-16.net
Tripwire, i think you mistook the AVEN for the VISTA.