another forums that comment on RSAF
-
What do you mean???.... isnt AVEN the heart of the VISTA system??? without the AVEN... the VISTA would be.... clipped??Originally posted by Shotgun:"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."
The spine is part of the VISTA Flying Test Bed, it is NOT the VISTA test bed. IDF and RSAF Vipers have the spine for their own equipment, the VISTA Spine is for other purposes.
AVEN is not in our Vipers, 4 reasons:
- US will not (and they have already made this clear) sell weapons to other countries that are more advanced than what the US has. US has no AVEN F-16, therefore WE don't get AVEN F-16
- Singapore has selected PW engines for F-16ws due to parts commonality. They won't select mixed engine batches, it will complicate logistic matters when it comes to spare parts and maintenance.
- LM/USAF Serial numbers(eg 94-0xxx). Undeniable proof. All F-16s manufactured have these. Check know lists of F-16s produced vs Block number vs end users. My list indicates no GE Vipers came to Singapore, unless its USAF ones on exercise
- AVEN on VISTA is a one-off. VISTA is a flying test bed to test new technolgiesm including spine AVEN and the like. No others like it were produced, the closest are the IDF and RSAF with spines. Only 1 F-16 with AVEN existed, thats VISTA. LM is still exploring with this technology, it has NOT been fitted to production F-16s.
Tripwire, if you want to put out an argument, please substantiate your sources. Don't say things like "how I know, I can't tell". If you can't name your source, don't say on a public forum what your source has told you. I have proof on whther HMS/Python IV exists in RSAF exists or not, but I won't say "yes/no" because I won't name my source and therefore I cannot show proof, so I'll just keep this info to myself. Also, to keep others who may be watching this site guessing
No offence intended.
Finally, Singapore and US-based RSAF Vipers come from the same batches (94-02xx, 96-50xx and 97-01xx), each of the units operating a mix of aircraft from each of the 3 batches, hence no such business as singapore based being more advanced than others. My list of serials tally up, but I shan't reveal more than the year and first 2 digits of the serials. -
If you like... i can get you that whole list of serials.... in fact... its even available on the net.....Originally posted by rsafpage:"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."
The spine is part of the VISTA Flying Test Bed, it is NOT the VISTA test bed. IDF and RSAF Vipers have the spine for their own equipment, the VISTA Spine is for other purposes.
*** please enlighten us to what other purpose would that be... remember... the RSAF F-16 is far too heavy to be just becos of a few additional electronic system.... the weight simply points or indicates some major structural design changes... major changes...
AVEN is not in our Vipers, 4 reasons:
- US will not (and they have already made this clear) sell weapons to other countries that are more advanced than what the US has. US has no AVEN F-16, therefore WE don't get AVEN F-16
*** The harpoon was designed and used by the brits before americans realise its effectiveness and use it... the Americans offer falcon 60 to gulf states even before it was even on line production.... but its generally true that americans like all nations on earth would not export weapons that are superior than those in theirs inventory... except when they are the owner of that technology.
- Singapore has selected PW engines for F-16ws due to parts commonality. They won't select mixed engine batches, it will complicate logistic matters when it comes to spare parts and maintenance.
*** Thats not entirely true.... while part commonality is indeed beneficial on logistical ground... it is not by far the most important consideration when making a purchase.... else.... why have more then one type of plane??
- LM/USAF Serial numbers(eg 94-0xxx). Undeniable proof. All F-16s manufactured have these. Check know lists of F-16s produced vs Block number vs end users. My list indicates no GE Vipers came to Singapore, unless its USAF ones on exercise
*** How would you know??? i mean... which of your dumb relatives or friends would actually spill all the beans on RSAF to you??? wouldnt that be foolish if not risky?? afterall.... you could be a malaysian spy.....
- AVEN on VISTA is a one-off. VISTA is a flying test bed to test new technolgiesm including spine AVEN and the like. No others like it were produced, the closest are the IDF and RSAF with spines. Only 1 F-16 with AVEN existed, thats VISTA. LM is still exploring with this technology, it has NOT been fitted to production F-16s.
*** again.... how would you know??? unless you are the CO of RSAF tengah air base or you are from GS.... i doubt even you can be 100% sure of what we have or dont have...
Tripwire, if you want to put out an argument, please substantiate your sources. Don't say things like "how I know, I can't tell". If you can't name your source, don't say on a public forum what your source has told you. I have proof on whther HMS/Python IV exists in RSAF exists or not, but I won't say "yes/no" because I won't name my source and therefore I cannot show proof, so I'll just keep this info to myself. Also, to keep others who may be watching this site guessing
*** True to the fact... we can only say what we know, but to back it up would neccessarily get our informants in trouble, not to mention ourselves as well with MSD and ISD.... It is up to the public and whoever that.... snake is... to decide if what we say is just a possibility or a reality.... we have no desire whatsoever to compromise our national defence with loose tongue....
No offence intended.
*** OUCH.... i dont think so... you just called me a lier up there.... unless i am being too sensitive.
Finally, Singapore and US-based RSAF Vipers come from the same batches (94-02xx, 96-50xx and 97-01xx), each of the units operating a mix of aircraft from each of the 3 batches, hence no such business as singapore based being more advanced than others. My list of serials tally up, but I shan't reveal more than the year and first 2 digits of the serials. -
I guess I am not the only person who reckons that RSAF Vipers do not have the AVEN system installed on the PW F100-229 engines.
However, I had a picture of an active USAF Viper (looks like a Block 32) on trial on a thrust vector system called the Lo Axis. It works like the Multi-Axis Thrust-Vectoring (MATV) version where the axisymmetric nozzle features full 360-degree thrust vectoring at a maximum deflection angle of twenty degrees. The nozzle is adaptable and fits any model F100 engine.
Maybe this is what tripwire is trying to say... MATV/Lo-Axis is operation and can be retrofitted on operational F100 engines and RSAF Vipers are retrofitted with that.... But still this is unconfirmed.... No indication that USAF has adopted this and Mike is right to point out that the Americans usually (not in the case of Block 60 Vipers to UAE, 50+ to Israel and Greece) do not allow others to have a version more capable than theirs.
Who knows, perhaps USAF reckons that the JSF is about to be produced and the JSF will beat any F-16 MATV pants down. Furthermore, with AIM-9X, MATV means squat. No vipers with MATV will be able to escape X-winders, or for that matter even Python 4s or ASRAAMs. -
Heres a quote on the AVEN/MATV programm from f-16.net
"A six-month flight test program with this engine-airframe combination was to be conducted in 1997 and the Air Force and Calspan would have the aircraft ready for customers in 1998. <b>However, the P&W thrust vectoring program has been canceled.</b>
The aircraft was converted to use a standard F100-PW-229 engine and was delivered back to Calpsan (the aircraft operators)in June of 1997. "
Full URL: http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_matv.html
Elsewhere on the page, it was stated that the VISTA was used to test flight control systems and the avionics for the JSF.
"please enlighten us to what other purpose would that be...remember... the RSAF F-16 is far too heavy to be just becos of a few additional electronic system.... the weight simply points or indicates some major structural design changes... major changes."
Electronic systems do add a significant amount of weight. I have just completed a study into aircraft design and in todays military aircraft, we have found that electronics do contribute a significant percentage of aircraft weight. With this weight of new electronics, together with the weight of the spine and beefing up of the structure, a 30% weight increase just for the electronics is reasonable.
"while part commonality is indeed beneficial on logistical ground... it is not by far the most important consideration when making a purchase.... else.... why have more then one type of plane??"
Simple. Different planes for different roles. It would make sense. But different planes(and a PW F-16 and GE F-16 is as good as a different plane) for same roles is just plain silly.
"the Americans offer falcon 60 to gulf states even before it was even on line production.... "
Slick market by US and LM. Throw in conformal fuel tanks, a few new black boxes and try to pass it off a "superior technolgy". Just like Boeing upsized the hornet, put more fuel, more pylons, more black boxes and called it a "new design". The F-16 Block 60, in terms of technolgy, is nothing really new over the latest 50/52s.
"again.... how would you know??? unless you are the CO of RSAF tengah air base or you are from GS....
How do I know that VISTA is a one-off? Simple. In one sentence: The LM website. The ang-mo countries don't work like us. They have something called Freedom Of Information Act. Such information on weapons sales MUST be made public. Scour the US DoD websites long enough and you can collate a full list of what the US has sold to us since goodness's knows when. And you don't even need a .mil domain to access this information too.
"which of your dumb relatives or friends would actually spill all the beans on RSAF to you???"
No...none of them were dumb enough to do that...which ones of yours were?
"If you like... i can get you that whole list of serials.... in fact... its even available on the net....."
Yes, please do, I would like to see your proof of a database of Singapore having GE-powered F-16s, with AVENs to boot. -
rsafpage/Mike do you think RSAF have already integrated DASH 3 and Python 4 into the 18 Vipers already in S'pore?
Secondly, what is going on with the Block 15 Vipers. ST Aero is borrowing 1 to test their new avionics update, what about the rest of the 6? Apparently 140 sqn still operating them right along with the CJ/DJ Vipers....
Lastly, Rafael claims to have sole Derby/Alto to Asia Pacific customer(s) other than Israeli and Chilean or Brazilian AF... does the AP customer refers you know who... Would it make sense to then have acquired AMRAAMs and Derbys at approximately the same time?
Lastly, when will RSAF finally officially allows pics of RSAF Vipers carrying ECM pods to be released... I am dying to spot one and see which one they have actually gotten. In the Red Flag, it seems that the pilots are trained to use ECM-131 pods, wonder does that translate to having it in the inventory...??? -
Tripwire wrote:
"while parts commonality is indeed beneficial on logistical ground... it is not by far the most important consideration when making a purchase"
I just have to say this, but IMHO this argument is ridiculous. Parts commonality is not the most important consideration in making a purchase, but it is one of the most important factors when buying follow on batches of the same aircraft. The GE and PW Vipers are different beasts, and if half your Viper fleet is GE and the other half PW, it'll lead th severe logistical problems. If you're going to get a new batch of the same plane, but with different engine, then might as well get a new type.
Parts commonality not only offers logistical ease, it also allows crew which are familiar with one type of equipment to work on your entire fleet and not train a new set of crew to work on the new type. Economies of scale are also another factor, its cheaper to buy 40 sets of X than to buy 20 sets of X and 20 of Y. Singapore is rich, not stupid. -
i Really dont wish to argue with you... since neither of us will be in any position to spill our informers just to prove a point on a net.
...... did i ever said RSAF falcon have GE engine???Originally posted by rsafpage:Heres a quote on the AVEN/MATV programm from f-16.net
"A six-month flight test program with this engine-airframe combination was to be conducted in 1997 and the Air Force and Calspan would have the aircraft ready for customers in 1998. <b>However, the P&W thrust vectoring program has been canceled.</b>
The aircraft was converted to use a standard F100-PW-229 engine and was delivered back to Calpsan (the aircraft operators)in June of 1997. "
Full URL: http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_matv.html
*** thank you for this web page...
Elsewhere on the page, it was stated that the VISTA was used to test flight control systems and the avionics for the JSF.
***If i remember correctly... JSF have Vector thrust engine right?? but i dont know JSF very well... correct me if i am wrong...
"please enlighten us to what other purpose would that be...remember... the RSAF F-16 is far too heavy to be just becos of a few additional electronic system.... the weight simply points or indicates some major structural design changes... major changes."
Electronic systems do add a significant amount of weight. I have just completed a study into aircraft design and in todays military aircraft, we have found that electronics do contribute a significant percentage of aircraft weight. With this weight of new electronics, together with the weight of the spine and beefing up of the structure, a 30% weight increase just for the electronics is reasonable.
*** The RSAF falcons must be really really full of electronics to increase its weight by 30%.... but i am not into electronics... so i wouldnt be able to confirm your claim.... but if true... i wonder how many electronic system is RSAF falcon carrying... and why it needs so many electronic gadgets... correct me if i am wrong... the RSAF Falcon is even heavier that IAF falcons with spine... right??
"while part commonality is indeed beneficial on logistical ground... it is not by far the most important consideration when making a purchase.... else.... why have more then one type of plane??"
Simple. Different planes for different roles. It would make sense. But different planes(and a PW F-16 and GE F-16 is as good as a different plane) for same roles is just plain silly.
*** did i ever say that RSAF have F-16 falcon with GE engine???? since when did i ever say that?? if you check the thread.... i never make such a claim..... why the furry directed at me???
"the Americans offer falcon 60 to gulf states even before it was even on line production.... "
Slick market by US and LM. Throw in conformal fuel tanks, a few new black boxes and try to pass it off a "superior technolgy". Just like Boeing upsized the hornet, put more fuel, more pylons, more black boxes and called it a "new design". The F-16 Block 60, in terms of technolgy, is nothing really new over the latest 50/52s.
*** what about the harpoons then??? isnt it true the brits used it first before the americans?? or was it a special case since the 2 country are such close pals?? As for the block 60 falcons.... doesnt... the conformer fuel tanks and new radar give the gulf falcon an edge over american falcons?? BUT i am willing to hear from you the definition of a NEW model..
"again.... how would you know??? unless you are the CO of RSAF tengah air base or you are from GS....
How do I know that VISTA is a one-off? Simple. In one sentence: The LM website. The ang-mo countries don't work like us. They have something called Freedom Of Information Act. Such information on weapons sales MUST be made public. Scour the US DoD websites long enough and you can collate a full list of what the US has sold to us since goodness's knows when. And you don't even need a .mil domain to access this information too.
*** the freedom of information act... pardon my lack of knowledge.... but i thought the act is something like.... the govt can keep anything secret for a period of 30 years... after which, the information will be made available to public... am i wrong??? if not... can you scour the DoD website for methods of Anthrax concentration method... heard that its worth quite a fortune in the black market...
"which of your dumb relatives or friends would actually spill all the beans on RSAF to you???"
No...none of them were dumb enough to do that...which ones of yours were?
*** see.??? neither of us wanna put our friends on the line....
"If you like... i can get you that whole list of serials.... in fact... its even available on the net....."
Yes, please do, I would like to see your proof of a database of Singapore having GE-powered F-16s, with AVENs to boot. -
THank you... but... i never said that RSAF have GE engine falcon... you have to check with the right guy who said that... thank you for your information.... at least you are courteous...Originally posted by Viper52:Tripwire wrote:
"while parts commonality is indeed beneficial on logistical ground... it is not by far the most important consideration when making a purchase"
I just have to say this, but IMHO this argument is ridiculous. Parts commonality is not the most important consideration in making a purchase, but it is one of the most important factors when buying follow on batches of the same aircraft. The GE and PW Vipers are different beasts, and if half your Viper fleet is GE and the other half PW, it'll lead th severe logistical problems. If you're going to get a new batch of the same plane, but with different engine, then might as well get a new type.
Parts commonality not only offers logistical ease, it also allows crew which are familiar with one type of equipment to work on your entire fleet and not train a new set of crew to work on the new type. Economies of scale are also another factor, its cheaper to buy 40 sets of X than to buy 20 sets of X and 20 of Y. Singapore is rich, not stupid. -
"if i remember correctly... JSF have Vector thrust engine right?? but i dont know JSF very well... correct me if i am wrong...
"
Yup, and VISTA is used to test Flight Control Systems for JSF, a program which required extensive changes to the F-16 structure, avionics control systems etc. Just to install the JSF's FCS. Let say for a moment, we DO have AVEN, we would also need to make extensive changes and not just to the structure. All 3 batches of our F-16s were bought at prices of average US25-30 million(and this figure includes spares, engines, weapons and training - DoD figure). Using common sense, would the price be kept so low if such extensive mods were required?
"the RSAF Falcon is even heavier that IAF falcons with spine... right??"
Wrong. A dead giveaway is the wheels. Block 40 Falcons onwards have enlarged main LG wheels/doors. Our has this, so does the IAF's, if RSAF MTOW is really somuch heavier, bigger wheels will be needed to take the weight
"the freedom of information act... pardon my lack of knowledge.... but i thought the act is something like.... the govt can keep thing secret for a period of 30 years...after which, the information will be made available to public... am i wrong??? if not... can you scour the DoD website for methods of Anthrax concentration method... heard that its worth quite a fortune in the black market..."
What I meant to say is that the Americans have regulations that REQUIRE them BY LAW to declare all conventional arms sales of big-ticket items to other countries, F-16s included. There can be no way that the Pentagon can secretly sell F-16s out to any country.
Stick to the topic in your arguments and counter-arguments. Stop bringing irrelavant points like anthrax in. You're arguing like a Malaysian politician.
"see??? neither of us wanna put our friends on the line...."
Exactly, I use sources that I can openly declare to argue our F-16s has no AVENs(DoD website/lists of F-16 serials/simple deduction), you just say, "I know our F-16 has AVEN, but I can't tell you how I know". Then whats the point of telling us something you can't/refuse to substantiate?
"... did i ever said RSAF falcon have GE engine???"
You didn't but I'm still waiting to see your website listing our F-16s.
My argument is simple. RSAF F-16s have no AVENs. I know because:
1) No F-16s show up in arms sales to Singapore other than 4 known batches: 1 in 94, 96, 97 and 2000. 3 batches have been delivered, I have seen pics of almost every single one(including those based in US). And they don't have AVENs
2) AVEN/TVN/MATV was never fitted to any F-16 other than the 2 flying testbed: VISTA (terminated in 97) and another Block 30 terminated in 95
3) Let say for a moment that your argument is that the AVENs were fitted later, after delivery to Singapore. So wheres the paper trail? Like I said DoD has to release all contract details, no matter how small(as example, DoD website lists contracts for Singapore purchase of AIM-7 and -9 training rounds, and 8 Pathfinder/Sharpshooter pods even BEFORE any F-16C/Ds were delievered). Don't you think that a separate contract for any AVENs will be listed if they were purchased separately? And if they came with the planes, don't you think they're going to cost more than 25-30 million each?
[This message has been edited by rsafpage (edited 26 October 2001).] -
Uhh, trip, excuse me but, the F-16 Block 60 isn't just a Block 50/53 with CFTs and a new radar slapped on. Its a damned good AESA radar. The plane also has internal FLIR and laser designator which are better than the LANTIRN. It is also equipped qith the F110-GE-229 engine, which produces 32,000 pounds of thrust! BTW, its integrated electronic warfare suite is more advanced and capable than ANYTHING currently installed on US fighter aircraft. With all these wnhancements, the capability of the plane is vastly enhanced over the Block 50/52 aircraft.
-
Tripewire wasn't the one who said that. rsafpage was.Originally posted by YourFather:Uhh, trip, excuse me but, the F-16 Block 60 isn't just a Block 50/53 with CFTs and a new radar slapped on. Its a damned good AESA radar. The plane also has internal FLIR and laser designator which are better than the LANTIRN. It is also equipped qith the F110-GE-229 engine, which produces 32,000 pounds of thrust! BTW, its integrated electronic warfare suite is more advanced and capable than ANYTHING currently installed on US fighter aircraft. With all these wnhancements, the capability of the plane is vastly enhanced over the Block 50/52 aircraft.
I've seen all the "enhancements" to the Block 60 but I tend to agree because no matter what, its still a basic variation of a 1970s airframe with add-ons. Granted it has all the improvements you've mentioned, but then the Super Hornet has a lot of new stuff thrown in, and leaked Congressional reports have already termed that project as a waste of money in terms of performance gained(over the C/D) vs. cost. In the face of newer fighters coming online like the Rafale, Typhoon and Su-30/37, the Block 60 will unfortunately look a bit like the F-16/79 in the early 80s(anybody remember that one?). Weights will only increase, and T/W ratios will only suffer correspondingly. As it is the Block 50/52s with spine are already almost useless as a fighter other than as a BVR AAM launch platform, what about a 60/62 with CFTs, spine and whatever else they're about to throw in there?
Off topic: JSF winner will be announced in a few hours time. (from 0000 hrs Singapore time.)
BTW someone mentioned that the Typhoon was a near certainty because he saw a model of one at RSAF Open House in RSAF markings. Sorry to say this but thats an old manufacturer trick. Putting your aircraft in your potential customers markings at his airshow. Anyone remember the "RSAF" C-130J in the LM Pavilion at Asian Aerospace in 2000? Singapore has yet to order a single J....as far as I'm concerned the RSAF fighter contract is still wide open.
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 27 October 2001).] -
Originally posted by rsafpage:"Wrong. A dead giveaway is the wheels. Block 40 Falcons onwards have enlarged main LG wheels/doors. Our has this, so does the IAF's, if RSAF MTOW is really somuch heavier, bigger wheels will be needed to take the weight
*** You saying that our F-16 is not heavier than IAF falcons?
What I meant to say is that the Americans have regulations that REQUIRE them BY LAW to declare all conventional arms sales of big-ticket items to other countries, F-16s included. There can be no way that the Pentagon can secretly sell F-16s out to any country.
*** I think that is basic knowledge.... no country would allow its factory or companies to sell anything they like especially weapons without informing the govt.... what i am saying is.... Do you think the US govt will list out every damn contract; open or COVERT sales on the internet with disregard to potential diplomatic fallout???
Stick to the topic in your arguments and counter-arguments. Stop bringing irrelavant points like anthrax in. You're arguing like a Malaysian politician.
*** oh..... i was just making a point that the americans dont put everything on the net for you and me to snoop around.... there are afterall such thing call restricted, confidential and top-secret.
You didn't but I'm still waiting to see your website listing our F-16s.
*** so that is what you really want.... i do have a website that list our F-16s, just enter the model of the planes like F-16A or F-16C... dont just type F-16... the website limites the display to 60 aircraft... i am not sure if the serial number is correct... but since you are such an expert.. i think you will have no problem discerning the truth. http://www.scramble.nl/sgbase.htm maybe if you joined as members... you can get more... i am just a free loafer.
My argument is simple. RSAF F-16s have no AVENs. I know because:
1) No F-16s show up in arms sales to Singapore other than 4 known batches: 1 in 94, 96, 97 and 2000. 3 batches have been delivered, I have seen pics of almost every single one(including those based in US). And they don't have AVENs
*** I assumed you are working for RSAF??? if so... i rest my case....
2) AVEN/TVN/MATV was never fitted to any F-16 other than the 2 flying testbed: VISTA (terminated in 97) and another Block 30 terminated in 95
*** Only the americans would know for sure... perhaps you too.. if you work for CIA...
3) Let say for a moment that your argument is that the AVENs were fitted later, after delivery to Singapore. So wheres the paper trail? Like I said DoD has to release all contract details, no matter how small(as example, DoD website lists contracts for Singapore purchase of AIM-7 and -9 training rounds, and 8 Pathfinder/Sharpshooter pods even BEFORE any F-16C/Ds were delievered). Don't you think that a separate contract for any AVENs will be listed if they were purchased separately? And if they came with the planes, don't you think they're going to cost more than 25-30 million each?
*** Of course... everything must be in black and white for you.... if there is no public declare contract... it dont exist.... OK... i am not going to argue with you... no point lah... since the alternative would be for me to spill the beans on RSAF and get myself lock up in some god forsaken DB.
[This message has been edited by rsafpage (edited 26 October 2001).] -
Sorry but if I understand your argument correctly, the Block50/52 is just a 'basic variation of a 1970s airframe with add-ons', so why should we get them? we might as well get the Block 0 Falcon instead?!?! Come on. You cant take the SuperHornet as an example, that's comparing durians with mangoes... The CFTs give the Falcon a deep-strike capability. Its EW suite gives it unprecedented survivability in all-missions, especially deep-strike. AESA radar enables sinultaneous terrain-following and airspace-scanning...Granted, dogfighting capability takes a hit due to the decreased T/W ratio, but in return, the vast gains in other areas more than makes up for it. It is in dogfighting that T/W matters the most but dogfighting is not ALL that the Falcon does. I believe that it can hold its own in combat versatility when compared to the Rafale, though the Rafale, of course, has much more development potential..Originally posted by Viper52:Tripewire wasn't the one who said that. rsafpage was.
I've seen all the "enhancements" to the Block 60 but I tend to agree because no matter what, its still a basic variation of a 1970s airframe with add-ons. Granted it has all the improvements you've mentioned, but then the Super Hornet has a lot of new stuff thrown in, and leaked Congressional reports have already termed that project as a waste of money in terms of performance gained(over the C/D) vs. cost. In the face of newer fighters coming online like the Rafale, Typhoon and Su-30/37, the Block 60 will unfortunately look a bit like the F-16/79 in the early 80s(anybody remember that one?). Weights will only increase, and T/W ratios will only suffer correspondingly. As it is the Block 50/52s with spine are already almost useless as a fighter other than as a BVR AAM launch platform, what about a 60/62 with CFTs, spine and whatever else they're about to throw in there?
Off topic: JSF winner will be announced in a few hours time. (from 0000 hrs Singapore time.)
BTW someone mentioned that the Typhoon was a near certainty because he saw a model of one at RSAF Open House in RSAF markings. Sorry to say this but thats an old manufacturer trick. Putting your aircraft in your potential customers markings at his airshow. Anyone remember the "RSAF" C-130J in the LM Pavilion at Asian Aerospace in 2000? Singapore has yet to order a single J....as far as I'm concerned the RSAF fighter contract is still wide open.
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 27 October 2001).] -
Do you think the US govt will list out every damn contract; open or COVERT sales on the internet with disregard to potential diplomatic fallout??
No, I never said that and I don't think that. What I said was that a contract like a batch of F-16s with AVENs or after-sales conversion to AVEN F-16s is not something like a shipment of 100 M-16s to some freedom fighters. You cannot cover up a big sale like F-16s or AVENs with a entry of $2000 toilet bowls. They won't list out every sale, thats for sure, but a sale like F-16s or a bunch of AVENs, you think no one will notice a few hundred million American dollars worth of disparity in the books?
"Only the americans would know for sure... perhaps you too.. if you work for CIA..."
"I assumed you are working for RSAF??? if so... i rest my case...."
I don't work for the RSAF USAF CIA FBI KGB MI5 MI6 Mossad or anyone. I came to the conclusion you are spouting nonsense using what information is available on the Net and journals and making simple deductions from that information
Stop trying to be sarcastic. You're sounding like a small boy who just lost an argument. I'm almost expecting you to say "Don't friend you" in your next reply...
"Of course... everything must be in black and white for you.... if there is no public declare contract... it dont exist"
See my reply above: I'm not saying everything must be in black or white, but there are somethings that you cannot hide. We're not talking about Israel here, its the US. They have laws that prevent them from covering up things like this.
"since the alternative would be for me to spill the beans on RSAF and get myself lock up in some god forsaken DB."
If you're really from SAF/RSAF, which I seriously doubt you are,you're too late. By blabbing about RSAF Vipers having AVENs on a public forum, you've already wiolated the rules you're supposed to work under. Be prepared to go in and squat(If you're really SAF you'll know what I mean )
I'm still waiting for an explanation. Using the list from Scramble(some members whom I've met and corresponded with for years), please explain how AVENs were fitted to some of our F-16s, as RSAF distributed the 3 batches more or less evenly bwtween the Singapore and US based units. FYI, the US-based units have pics of their aircraft have all over the Net and books, and they don't have AVENs as far as I can see. -
Granted, I have exagerrated with the remark that Block 60 is a souped up 70s airframe, I stand corected.
Compared to the original F-16, it is a quantum leap in capablity and performance. But bringing us back to the original context of the argument, when Tripwire used the sale of Block 60s to UAE as an example that the US does not mind selling weapons more advanced than it has to other countries, is where I feel its wrong. To compare the Block 60 and the Rafale and Eurofighter in the same breath ? LM doesn't even dare to do that. It has always marketed the Block 60 as a cheaper, less capable alternative to the Rafale and Typhoon which will allow customers to get more aircraft and with a proven combat track record. If it is such a quantum leap over the Block 50/52, why do you think the USAF is not showing interest? The newer Block 50+/52+ have CFT capability and colour MFDs, granted miniturization allows the 60 to carry FLIR/TFRs etc internally, but carrying the LANTIRNs externally does offer the 40/42/50/52 more flexibility in that they can lessen the weight and leave the pods at home when not needed instead of bringing along deadweight on missions they are not needed on.
AESA is not what its all cut out to be. It has potential, I'll allow that, but even manufacturers privately admit the technolgy is still new, and that there are still limitations to the system which might take years to iron out before AESA can perform up to its potential. Which is when planes like the Typhoon and Rafale are slated to receive theirs while retaining conventional radars.
US arms export policy is always politically and self-driven. They look after their own interests first. If they think that the 60 is such a quantum leap over the 50 etc, they will NEVER clear it for export even before the first example has flown. -
Viper52, the F-16 block60 is not exactly the same old 1970's airframe slapped with new stuff. It may have a new airframe built for it.
... F-16A 140sq w/o w/o 08jul91
... F-16C .. act nov99
... 94-0283 F-16D DB-10 425th FS/LF act feb99 oct00
... 94-0281 F-16D DB-8 425th FS/LF act mar99 oct00
608 F-16C 140sq act aug98 aug98 Modifications to spine made by IAI
608? 94-0266 F-16C DA-1 140sq act aug98 jan99 at Tengah
609 94-0267 F-16C DA-2 425th FS/LF act mar99
610? 94-0268 F-16C DA-3 140sq act jan99 jan00 ex 425th FS, tie-up unknown
611? 94-0269 F-16C DA-4 140sq act dec99 aug00 ex 425th FS, tie-up unknown, Tengah feb00
612 (not!) 94-0270 F-16C DA-5 428th FS/CC act may99 aug00 428th FS, tie-up unknown, Tengah feb00
613 94-0271 F-16C DA-6 140sq act dec99 jun00 ex 425th FS
614 94-0272 F-16C DA-7 140sq act dec99 jan00 ex 425th FS
615 94-0273 F-16C DA-8 428th FS/CC act jan99 oct00
616 F-16C 140sq act jan00 Delivered?
623 94-0275 F-16D DB-2 140sq act feb00 jun00 ex 425th FS
624 94-0276 F-16D DB-3 140sq act aug98 jan00
625? 94-0277 F-16D DB-4 140sq act aug98 aug00
626 94-0278 F-16D DB-5 140sq act jul98 aug00
627? 94-0279 F-16D DB-6 140sq act jan99 mar99 seen at WSAP 17mar00 with SAI
628? 94-0280 F-16D DB-7 428th FS/CC act jul99 oct99
629 94-0282 F-16D DB-9 428th FS/CC act jun99 jul00
638 94-0274 F-16D DB-1 140sq act apr98 aug98 d/d 14aug98, h/o 09apr98
640 F-16D 140sq act mar00 aug00
692 F-16D 140sq act may00 aug00
80-0638 F-16B 62-80 58th TTW act jan96
81-0663 F-16A 61-344 58th TTW act mar93 jan96
81-0667 F-16A 61-348 AMARC act feb96
81-0670 F-16A 61-351 AMARC act feb96
81-0677 F-16A 61-358 AMARC act feb96
81-0679 F-16A 61-360 AMARC act feb96
81-0683 F-16A 61-364 AMARC act feb96
81-0687 F-16A 61-386 58th TTW act jan96
81-0815 F-16B 62-84 58th TTW act jan96
88-0156 F-16D 1D-10 58th TTW act nov95 sep96
88-0417 F-16C 58th TTW act dec95 sep96
88-0427 F-16C 58th TTW act dec95 sep96
88-0520 F-16C 58th TTW act sep96
880 F-16A 27-01 140sq act oct93 aug00
880 87-0397 F-16A 27-01. 58th TTW act oct88 apr89
881 F-16A 27-02 140sq act nov90 nov98
881 87-0398 F-16A 27-02. 58th TTW act oct88 apr89
882 F-16A 27-03 140sq act nov94 dec99
882 87-0399 F-16A 27-03. 58th TTW act oct88 apr89
883 F-16A 27-04 140sq w/o w/o 08jul91
883 87-0400 F-16A 27-04. 58th TTW act oct88 apr89
885 F-16B 28-01 140sq act jan95 aug00
885 87-0401 F-16B 28-01. 58th TTW act oct88 apr89
886 F-16B 28-02 140sq act jan95 dec99
886 87-0402 F-16B 28-02. 58th TTW act oct88 apr89
887 F-16B 28-03 140sq act jan95 dec99
887 87-0403 F-16B 28-03. 58th TTW act oct88 apr89
888 F-16B 28-04 140sq act oct93 jun00
888 87-0404 F-16B 28-04. 58th TTW act oct88 apr89
89-2002 F-16C 1C-155 58th TTW act dec95 sep96
89-2007 F-16C 1C-160 58th TTW act sep96
89-2012 F-16C 1C-165 58th TTW act sep96
89-2022 F-16C 1C-175 58th TTW act jan96 sep96
89-2034 F-16C 1C-187 58th TTW act dec95 sep96
89-2082 F-16C 1C-235 58th TTW act sep96
89-2151 F-16C 1C-304 58th TTW act sep96
The above information was obtained from scramble.nl
However, the information, I feel is not exactly accurate.
Someone said that the US Govt was obliged to declare all arms transaction, and the information made available through the freedom of information act. That is not entirely through. Information marked "TOP SECRET" (Often enough, mislabeling), will not be made available through the act. These information being of interest to National Security or other national interests.
If you examine Singapore closely, yes, the country is indeed a national interest to the US. Mainly because it is one of the few Allies in the region. It is a clamped between many countries who do not show much "appreciation" for the US. IF, the US transfers any sensitive technologies or modifications to equipment, to Singapore and its armed forces, don't you think such information would be instantly blacked out to avoid sparking further problems in the potentially volatile region?
TO Someone... hehe I forgot who. Yes, it is indeed a manufacturers's trick to place markings on models belonging to potential customers. However, I still believe that Singapore will go for the Typhoon above other choices. The RSAF was considering between the Typhoon, Rafale, JAS39, as well as the F-16C/D 60. The JAS39 lost the fight straight. The Block60 is still relatively new, also made in US. So the real competition has been between the Rafale and the Typhoon all along.
I believe that the Typhoon will eventually win its way into RSAF inventories. The Typhoon is designed to be a Top Class Air to air fighter, with a secondary ground attack option. Whereas the Rafale is designed to be a Top class multirole fighter. Afterall, the typhoon is the best fighter around, second only to the F-22. Singapore can effectively counter future Malaysian Su-30 threats with the Typhoon.
Anyway, I still think Tripwire is right about the AVEN, or "Similar" system the RSAF is working on our F-16s. If the Israelis can do it, so can we. =P
[This message has been edited by Shotgun (edited 28 October 2001).] -
"If it is such a quantum leap over the Block 50/52, why do you think the USAF is not showing interest?"Originally posted by Viper52:Granted, I have exagerrated with the remark that Block 60 is a souped up 70s airframe, I stand corected.
Compared to the original F-16, it is a quantum leap in capablity and performance. But bringing us back to the original context of the argument, when Tripwire used the sale of Block 60s to UAE as an example that the US does not mind selling weapons more advanced than it has to other countries, is where I feel its wrong. To compare the Block 60 and the Rafale and Eurofighter in the same breath ? LM doesn't even dare to do that. It has always marketed the Block 60 as a cheaper, less capable alternative to the Rafale and Typhoon which will allow customers to get more aircraft and with a proven combat track record. If it is such a quantum leap over the Block 50/52, why do you think the USAF is not showing interest? The newer Block 50+/52+ have CFT capability and colour MFDs, granted miniturization allows the 60 to carry FLIR/TFRs etc internally, but carrying the LANTIRNs externally does offer the 40/42/50/52 more flexibility in that they can lessen the weight and leave the pods at home when not needed instead of bringing along deadweight on missions they are not needed on.
AESA is not what its all cut out to be. It has potential, I'll allow that, but even manufacturers privately admit the technolgy is still new, and that there are still limitations to the system which might take years to iron out before AESA can perform up to its potential. Which is when planes like the Typhoon and Rafale are slated to receive theirs while retaining conventional radars.
US arms export policy is always politically and self-driven. They look after their own interests first. If they think that the 60 is such a quantum leap over the 50 etc, they will NEVER clear it for export even before the first example has flown.
There was an F-16X version which was with a delta wing, I think it is the pic of the F-16 posted a few posts above, that had ALMOST the capability of the
JSF fighter(lack stealth, of course), and was cheaper than the JSF. However, the USAF hurriedly cut funds to more research on this variant because they did not want Congress to get wind of this aircraft and then forcing them to accept the F-16X instead of the JSF. So as not to be stuck with an aircraft model which did not have anymore upgrade potential left, they did not want the F-16X.
"If they think that the 60 is such a quantum leap over the 50 etc, they will NEVER clear it for export even before the first example has flown"
Not so. It seems each of the services decide whether or not to sell, and the USAF is much more willing than say, the Army, to sell stuff more advanced than what they have.
As for that part about the AESA radar, could you give me where you got than? I'm pretty interested in AESA radars, and I'm always trying to find out more on them :-) -
"Viper52, the F-16 block60 is not exactly the same old 1970's airframe slapped with new stuff. It may have a new airframe built for it."
That photo is just a artist impression. No one, other than those in LM, and possibly UAE knows what the F-16s to the UAE look like. You're right about the first part, like I said in an earlier post, I stand corrected. However it is the same aircraft, no doubt beefed up and strengthened over the years
"The above information was obtained from scramble.nl
However, the information, I feel is not exactly accurate."
Got that right. They have listed aircraft numbers as being brought back to Singapore when Combat Aircraft magazine May 2002 lists them as still in US.
"Someone said that the US Govt was obliged to declare all arms transaction, and the information made available through the freedom of information act. That is not entirely through. Information marked "TOP SECRET" (Often enough, mislabeling), will not be made available through the act. These information being of interest to National Security or other national interests."
rsafpage said that its laws like FOIA, not FOIA itself that obligates the US government to dealare all converntional arms sales under the FMS program. He said that the US CANNOT make secret arms sales to foriegn countries.
That is TRUE
"If you examine Singapore closely, yes, the country is indeed a national interest to the US. Mainly because it is one of the few Allies in the region. It is a clamped between many countries who do not show much "appreciation" for the US. IF, the US transfers any sensitive technologies or modifications to equipment, to Singapore and its armed forces, don't you think such information would be instantly blacked out to avoid sparking further problems in the potentially volatile region?"
If the US can do that, then why stall on the AMRAAM sale for years, and then finally agreeing to sell it to us but have to keep it in the US, and then do something like that with AVENs? The US has repeated said that it will not intriduce new weapons technolgy to this region(hence the stalling on AMRAAMs to singapore and Thailand), then wouldn't selling AVENs(IF it exists - and I've yet to see a publication or source that it is fitted on PRODUCTION - and not testbed F-16s)be a violation of that rule. Even if we do get AVEN(a BIG if), we will only get it after you-know-who gets TVN Sukhois.
"TO Someone... hehe I forgot who. Yes, it is indeed a manufacturers's trick to place markings on models belonging to potential customers. However, I still believe that Singapore will go for the Typhoon above other choices. The RSAF was considering between the Typhoon, Rafale, JAS39, as well as the F-16C/D 60. The JAS39 lost the fight straight. The Block60 is still relatively new, also made in US. So the real competition has been between the Rafale and the Typhoon all along."
Agree with the last statement. My choice is the Rafale, however we can argue each aircrafts merit to death and no one will win. So I'll just wait for the RSAF announcement.
"I believe that the Typhoon will eventually win its way into RSAF inventories. The Typhoon is designed to be a Top Class Air to air fighter, with a secondary ground attack option. Whereas the Rafale is designed to be a Top class multirole fighter. Afterall, the typhoon is the best fighter around, second only to the F-22. Singapore can effectively counter future Malaysian Su-30 threats with the Typhoon."
See above
"Anyway, I still think Tripwire is right about the AVEN, or "Similar" system the RSAF is working on our F-16s. If the Israelis can do it, so can we. =P "
Like I said before, I''d like to see evidence (text or photographic) of AVEN F-16s on the PRODUCTION F-16s of RSAF, IAF or whoever else is supposed to operate them. Tripwire went on and on about RSAF F-16 having AVEN but refuses to show proof that it has even been fitted to ANY production Viper.
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 28 October 2001).] -
[QUOTE]Originally posted by YourFather:
[B]
" There was an F-16X version which was with a delta wing, I think it is the pic of the F-16 posted a few posts above, that had ALMOST the capability of the
JSF fighter(lack stealth, of course), and was cheaper than the JSF. However, the USAF hurriedly cut funds to more research on this variant because they did not want Congress to get wind of this aircraft and then forcing them to accept the F-16X instead of the JSF. So as not to be stuck with an aircraft model which did not have anymore upgrade potential left, they did not want the F-16X."
Which is exactly my point in saying that US will not export stuff that is better than what it has. It cleared the Block 60 for export to UAE because the US knows that it has better stuff than the 60, but Tripwire was using the UAE deal as an example that the US will export weapons better than what the US has, which I disagree with.
" Not so. It seems each of the services decide whether or not to sell, and the USAF is much more willing than say, the Army, to sell stuff more advanced than what they have. "
Ahhh...but if the military wants to sell hardware, it must clear 2 hurdles: State Dept and Congress. I tend to disagree there, there has never been a case of the USAF selling more advanced equipment overseas. Even the F-15E derivatives sold to Israel and S Arabia have equipemt standard on USAF F-15Es removed.
" As for that part about the AESA radar, could you give me where you got than? I'm pretty interested in AESA radars, and I'm always trying to find out more on them :-)"
Source like World Air Power Journal Flight International etc. I'm sorry, but I cannot give you an exact issue. I've read to many
But WAPJ 36, a discussion on late Block Vipers, did touch a little on this at the end of the article. -
...... peng.... why am i talking to a mule....Originally posted by rsafpage:Do you think the US govt will list out every damn contract; open or COVERT sales on the internet with disregard to potential diplomatic fallout??
No, I never said that and I don't think that. What I said was that a contract like a batch of F-16s with AVENs or after-sales conversion to AVEN F-16s is not something like a shipment of 100 M-16s to some freedom fighters. You cannot cover up a big sale like F-16s or AVENs with a entry of $2000 toilet bowls. They won't list out every sale, thats for sure, but a sale like F-16s or a bunch of AVENs, you think no one will notice a few hundred million American dollars worth of disparity in the books?
*** Sure.... of course.... everyone will notice it.... hahahaaaa...... if everyone gets to see the real account... if the account is even kept at all, hahahaaaa....... r u really in the military?? come on... i have been in special SAF projects with money literary popping out of thin air !!!
"Only the americans would know for sure... perhaps you too.. if you work for CIA..."
"I assumed you are working for RSAF??? if so... i rest my case...."
I don't work for the RSAF USAF CIA FBI KGB MI5 MI6 Mossad or anyone. I came to the conclusion you are spouting nonsense using what information is available on the Net and journals and making simple deductions from that information
*** wow... thick skin leh.... kow tow to you.... paiseh...hor... i just a nonsense spouting machine... you the truth sayer... i am ashamed to be in your divince presence of truth.... *am i being sarcastic?? must be... hehehe *
Stop trying to be sarcastic. You're sounding like a small boy who just lost an argument. I'm almost expecting you to say "Don't friend you" in your next reply...
*** dont stick your ass through the heaven lah.. now what?? personality attack?? yawn...... last i check... we are not friends... we are not even acquaintainces... we have never even seen each other!! ahahahaaa.......
"Of course... everything must be in black and white for you.... if there is no public declare contract... it dont exist"
See my reply above: I'm not saying everything must be in black or white, but there are somethings that you cannot hide. We're not talking about Israel here, its the US. They have laws that prevent them from covering up things like this.
*** sure... of course.... how stupid of me... how can i not realise that USA will spill everything for public consumption.... ahhh.... i apologise... i always believe that USA is like many countries in the world with secrets and confidential stuff documents for certain peoples' eyes only..... must be wrong to even think like that.... sorry sorry sorry.... paiseh hor... must have been watching too many hollywood spy movie...
"since the alternative would be for me to spill the beans on RSAF and get myself lock up in some god forsaken DB."
If you're really from SAF/RSAF, which I seriously doubt you are,you're too late. By blabbing about RSAF Vipers having AVENs on a public forum, you've already wiolated the rules you're supposed to work under. Be prepared to go in and squat(If you're really SAF you'll know what I mean )
*** The SAF will do that... if i really spill the beans... like posting the photo and the serial number of the falcons that have AVEN... until then... they wont touch me since... it might give credence to my claim.... heheehehe... even if i dont post the information on the net..... people here will believe something is amiss if poor tripwire is held for investigation.
I'm still waiting for an explanation. Using the list from Scramble(some members whom I've met and corresponded with for years), please explain how AVENs were fitted to some of our F-16s, as RSAF distributed the 3 batches more or less evenly bwtween the Singapore and US based units. FYI, the US-based units have pics of their aircraft have all over the Net and books, and they don't have AVENs as far as I can see. -
Hmmmm Let me reiterate my point. When the US government cannot let make arms sales in secret to certain countries, does not mean it WILL NOT do so. Damn it, I don't even know what this is all about, why is there discussion about such black sales when nobody actually knows about them. Whether our F-16s have DASH or similar HMS, its the duty of pilots to keep their mouth shut about it. Unless that is, some military mag makes publications on it. But let me ask a question of logic and reason. Malaysian MiG-29 has HMS, a very advantageous feature in a dogfight. Do you think Singapore will decide to lag behind in this area? Malaysia has acquired Adders, do you think Singapore is gonna just sit back and not acquire other MRMs and wait for AMRAAMs. AMRAAMS which may not even effectively counter the vympel R-77? I have seen publications on Israeli mags that almost confirm Singapore purchased Alto/Derby.
To whoever who was "advising" against buy the derby simply because we had Sparrows, read on.
The AIM-7E is a very old missile. It is Semi Active Radar Homing, which requires the launch aircraft to paint the target continuously or the missile will fail. That means the F-16 firing must point its nose @ the target. The Alto/Derby, and the AMRAAMs we have not recieved, are ARH, Active radar homing, which means they can paint and track the target on their own, allowing the F-16 dodge other inbound missile.
High profile weapons, like AMRAAMs, (conveniently splashed over headlines of local newspapers), are stalled because they do not wish to introduce this kinda weapons in the region first. But, Singapore and Thailand are CLEARED to recieve them. Thailand recieved the clearance much earlier.
To Viper52, unlike the US government, we do not have a Freedom of Information Act. We also do not publish every single military secret we fucking have on the internet, nor splash our F-16 Modifications for everybody to see. We also don't like telling people that we bought Alto/Derby just because we fucking didn't recieve our AMRAAMs. For people outside the military, they can only speculate, but no one will every confirm with anyone outside what we have and what we don't have. So neither is anybody here confirming anything. All people here are doing are just offering a simple "why not?" to reasonably believable claims. Even pilots won't know the kill probability of their missiles until they fire their first warshots. Until the government confirms the F-16s have HMS (which it doesnt have a NEED to), there is nothing wrong with discussing the possibility of having it or finding evidence that we have it. -
and i wonder why I keep talking to a bag of hot air which just seems to come up with more hot air every time I try to raise a coherent argument.Originally posted by tripwire:...... peng.... why am i talking to a mule....
To the rest of the readers, think about this. Do you know any military personnnel as friends? Do they go about blabbing about so much of what they do in their daily jobs to strangers on the web? I know my fair share of military people, and I've yet to see one like Tripwire, who comes into a public forum, blabs repeated about what he "knows", claims he's on the inside and yet refuses to elaborate. These people I know are working in much more mundane jobs than Tripwires supposed "special SAF projects", and they wouldn't even talk about what they are supposed to know.
"The SAF will do that... if i really spill the beans... like posting the photo and the serial number of the falcons that have AVEN...until then... they wont touch me since... it might give credence to my claim.... heheehehe... even if i dont post the information on the net"
Tripwire, stop fooling yourself, the MSD will not need to to lend substance to your claim to investigate you, all it needs is to you to talk about something you were not supposed to, which you've already did IF your claim is true and you ARE an SAF personnel.
You're a liar Tripwire, and a bag of hot-air at that. I shan't bother with you either, but unlike you I'll put my money where my mouth is and not bother to reply to your next load of dribble which you call a reply. -
RSAFpage...... thank you for your compliment... i am just a bag of hot air....Originally posted by rsafpage:and i wonder why I keep talking to a bag of hot air which just seems to come up with more hot air every time I try to raise a coherent argument.
*** you raising your 'I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT RSAF' Flag so high into the clouds... you dont even want to hear any alternative views or possibility.... as far as i and everyone can see from your POSTings... you claim full and complete knowledge about RSAF... maybe the chief of air force is your father!!! you consider anyone else's view in contrary to your knowledge as heresy!!! so much FOR coherent argument.
To the rest of the readers, think about this. Do you know any military personnnel as friends? Do they go about blabbing about so much of what they do in their daily jobs to strangers on the web?
*** did i mentioned anything about my projects???... what project am i involve in... please tell everyone... leh...
You're a liar Tripwire, and a bag of hot-air at that. I shan't bother with you either, but unlike you I'll put my money where my mouth is and not bother to reply to your next load of dribble which you call a reply.
and so are u... hahaaaa.......
your last statement just shot down everyone of us here who is blabbering on the net about SAF STUFFs... maybe we are all just a bunch of hot airs.... we are so sorry to waste your time talking to us mundanes military buffs.... kindly leave us to drown in our folly.... and lock yourself up in that ivory tower of yours... and throw away your key....
hot air we are?? but cannot compare to your proud hot fart, afterall... few if any of us here with the exception of you could
1. claim of having SEEN all the 3 batches of RSAF falcons and know about its distribution and deployment in singapore and USA.... the serial numbers and blah blah blah.... wow.. i must complain to RSAF and MSD about their security cockup... letting a mad man on the loose snooping in an air force base.
2. that USA only have afew AVEN falcons... geezz... uncle sam must really trust you with such information!!! you monica the second inside bill clintons office isit??? wow.... i doubt even american generals can be sure of that... take the F117 as an example... before the gulf war... nobody knew it existed... i wonder how they could have cover the money trail.... from RSAFpage....
3. That USA cant have under table dealings becos of that.... stupid free information act... (donkey talk). F-117 must have been made in heaven, paid by GOD and delivered to the americans by his angels.... how else could its existance went unseen from the all seeing eye of RSAFpage and DoD snoopers??
BUT i will not call you a lier... afterall... i never met you... you could be working for MSD for a purpose.... at least i give people the benefit of the doubt...
Sorry people... i shouldnt have wasted everyone's bandwidth on a moron who simply grows old BUT never grows UP. -
Tripwire, sorry man have to disagree with you on this one. He sai he saw almost ALL not ALL. You don't need to snoop around RSAF bases to get numbers:Originally posted by tripwire:1. claim of having SEEN all the 3 batches of RSAF falcons and know about its distribution and deployment in singapore and USA.... the serial numbers and blah blah blah.... wow.. i must complain to RSAF and MSD about their security cockup... letting a mad man on the loose snooping in an air force base.
.
- Combat Aircraft magazine May 99 lists ALL the Cannon-based RSAF Falcon serial numbers PLUS several pics of them
- KokuFan magazine Feb/Mar 2001. Features shots of NOZZLES and more of 6 140 Sqn Vipers in Australia on exercise
- AFM one of the 2001 issues shows 4 RSAF Falcons on an article of an Israeli Air Combat Manoevuring system sold to Singapore
- USAF Yearbook 2000 features the Luke based RSAF Squadron
- The following websites have several shots of RSAF US-based Falcons on Red Flag and Maple Flag exercises:
www.steehouwer.com http://members.xoom.com/bgilson/ http://www.air-and-space.com/
There are of course more legit sources of photos I don't know about. But using the sources above, you can get a fairly good idea of ALMOST ALL of the Vipers from the 3 batches.
These pictures are easily available and can be sourced all over the world. Don't need to do any spying or illegal methods to see these pictures and to see pics of almost all the Vipers in RSAF inventory.