another forums that comment on RSAF
-
Oh BTW wasn't the topic about how arms sales to foreign countries cannot be covered up? A national security issue like F-117 for the USAF and arms sales of high tech stuff to other countries are 2 different issues.Originally posted by tripwire:3. F-117 must have been made in heaven, paid by GOD and delivered to the americans by his angels
F-117 was not publicly declared until 1988. They were known about 3 YEARS before Gulf War, and saw their first action in 1989 in the invasion of Panama. However long before 1988 there was already a lot of rumours(almost to the point of open secret) that US had new types of planes "invisible" to radar, and rumours were so rife that even their operating location in Nevada was known, just that no-one else was allowed in.
A little slack on our history again, aren't we? -
Not at all......Originally posted by Viper52:Oh BTW wasn't the topic about how arms sales to foreign countries cannot be covered up? A national security issue like F-117 for the USAF and arms sales of high tech stuff to other countries are 2 different issues.
*** not entirely.... it depends on whether the publication of the sale or the possession of state of the art weapon would have any impact on national security. so if the disclosure of the secret weapon would impact national security negatively... it will not be disclose... likewise... if the disclosure of certain weapons sale would have negative impact on the seller in any field including security and diplomacy... it is generally kept under wraps.. At other time... the buyer may wish to see its weapon purchase listed off public eyes.... for either security or diplomatic concerns... the sale is concluded but never publicised.
F-117 was not publicly declared until 1988. They were known about 3 YEARS before Gulf War, and saw their first action in 1989 in the invasion of Panama. However long before 1988 there was already a lot of rumours(almost to the point of open secret) that US had new types of planes "invisible" to radar, and rumours were so rife that even their operating location in Nevada was known, just that no-one else was allowed in.
*** still.... the program was under wraps... it is obvious when we see things in perspective...backward in time, since now we know more now then before, but during that time before the US announce its stealth fighter... everything is simply rumors, nobody can provide a photo or even a proper account of the plane that is convincing enough to be considered an irrefutable fact... the project was hush hush.. and while rumors fly.... no confirmation is forthcoming prior to the admission by the DoD.
A little slack on our history again, aren't we? -
But he sure is confident about what RSAF have or dont have... so unless he has seen everything in RSAF.... i wonder how can he be so sure of everything that is happening in RSAF.Originally posted by Viper52: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:
. -
Viper52, since you say they are readily available off the internet, why don't you copy and paste the serial numbers of all our 70 falcons. Yes, the numbers are at approximately 70 now. (including those involved in peace carvin I, II)
-
comeon lah, ppl, this thread is getting more absurd as this argument goes on abt whether we hv the MATV on our jets or not.
i would juz wonder how many ppl who has viewed this thread would be looking at how ppl can argue abt the capabilities of the RSAF. it would be simply becoming a joke to see the way our ppl 'reason' out such matters.
tripwire, u cant juz insist that u noe that these F-16 of ours have the MATV in there w/o any proof.
no one's gonna get convinced anyway, till u get sum evidence for show, even though u claim that u cannot reveal ur sources.
even, if you noe our f-16s got the MATV attached, wat's hoo ha abt ppl not convinced by your words?
if they dun take it, then leave it. no point insisting on it.
no offence taken, but ppl will think that u are juz trying to flaunt ur knowledge.
for the others who don't are not convinced(i am one of the fellows who really wonder how the F-16s got the MATV attached as sum1 has claimed.):
while in this forum we may contemplate on wat RSAF has or not, i see no point in seeing ppl arguing whether RSAF has this or not.
it's basically pointless as only the ppl from RSAF knows abt it, and we cant be so sure unless we are an insider orselves.
any insiders here, i think ur trusted 2 keep ur mouth shut abt things that they dun want ppl to know outside.
stop the fuss abt the MATV lah ppl... i think we can juz bring out fresh topics...
------------------
-------------
Berpegang Teguh Kepada Pediriannya -
You see, one here knows there is, One here doubts there isn't. The one who knows, cannot risk showing the proof, the one who doubts simply doubts with the lack of proof.
I'm sure Tripwire is not foolish enough to throw evidence of RSAF capabilities on the net, so stop making him. Viper52, honestly, I despise your kinda of badgering for evidence under circumstances where one cannot reveal. Put yourself in his shoes.
Even if you don't believe the RSAF have been toolin around with AVEN or other thrust vectoring gizmo, don't need to badger him for proof that there is right? If you don't believe then forget it, lock your mind up or something.
The people who forum here are just people who are interested in the RSAF or have something to share. Some are students who are going to enlist, some have interest in such subjects, some are foreign spies and some are ISD people. So why don't you forget about the proof part and just stick to your "filtered" information. -
oeitou, take it easy lah....Originally posted by oeitou:comeon lah, ppl, this thread is getting more absurd as this argument goes on abt whether we hv the MATV on our jets or not.
i would juz wonder how many ppl who has viewed this thread would be looking at how ppl can argue abt the capabilities of the RSAF. it would be simply becoming a joke to see the way our ppl 'reason' out such matters.
tripwire, u cant juz insist that u noe that these F-16 of ours have the MATV in there w/o any proof.
no one's gonna get convinced anyway, till u get sum evidence for show, even though u claim that u cannot reveal ur sources.
even, if you noe our f-16s got the MATV attached, wat's hoo ha abt ppl not convinced by your words?
if they dun take it, then leave it. no point insisting on it.
no offence taken, but ppl will think that u are juz trying to flaunt ur knowledge.
for the others who don't are not convinced(i am one of the fellows who really wonder how the F-16s got the MATV attached as sum1 has claimed.):
while in this forum we may contemplate on wat RSAF has or not, i see no point in seeing ppl arguing whether RSAF has this or not.
it's basically pointless as only the ppl from RSAF knows abt it, and we cant be so sure unless we are an insider orselves.
any insiders here, i think ur trusted 2 keep ur mouth shut abt things that they dun want ppl to know outside.
stop the fuss abt the MATV lah ppl... i think we can juz bring out fresh topics...
So far I reckon the posts have been rather interesting. Both tripwire and Viper52 made their points. It is always good to see people passionate about their believes. In Singapore, we are taught to only accepts authority and never questions. Here on the internet, we should be able to voice whatever we wish, however passionate it might be.
I can see that tripwire and Viper52 have substantially knowledge about military hardware especially in RSAF inventory. They might be right, they might be wrong. Who cares... we are here to voice what we have discovered through official or unofficial sources. People can choose to believe that they wish.
Afterall, we know that Mindef and RSAF will not reveal what they intend to keep as secret by hook or by crook. Anyone leaking sensitive information will never get out of their hands. If by mistakes they accidentally leak any informaiton to the public domain, they that's their fault.
There are more secrets of RSAF then if the Vipers have MATV, Lo-Axi thrust vectoring, AVEN F110 engines, or any other things they might have.
Its all in the name of interest and fun that people throw challenges at each other to "prove" their sources... Its a boys game anyway.
So once again... relax... take it easy... -
Here is something new...
How feasible it is to convert A4SU to drones (for SEAD purposes - to lure the SAMs to fire at the drones and SEAD Vipers to strike the radars), UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles), and UAVs spy planes???
I have this vision that if RSAF can convert some A4SU to UCAVs, then they will really be some force in the region.... BTW, wonder if the current technology is available to do so.
How is a remote console going to command an aircraft that will provide live images, target information and situation awareness? A UCAV is unlike the UAV which only job is to capture images and fly back home. A UCAV will need to provide the remote controller (pilot) to have the same situation awareness as if the pilot is in the cockpit himself perhaps through the use of virtual reality.
Furthermore, if the technology available today can provide the necessary bandwidth to download so much information to a single jet? How about a couple of fighters at one time???
Some really interesting thoughts... I hope this will generate a couple of comments from everyone.... tripwire, viper52, shotgun, et. al. -
Funny how you got this information.
I heard that Singapore purchased a whole factory line producing A-4 Frames in the US. I asked around, and was told that it was likely that they would produce A-4 remote controlled drones.
SEAD seems like a very feasible role for such drones. All one needs is a radar-warning reciever, 2 HARMs, and send em off. -
"As well as the F-16, Singapore's Air Force also has a big fleet of F-5 Tiger II. Their introduction started in 1979, although over the years some second hand aircraft have also been added. In the meantime eight of the F-5E have been altered into RF-5E Tigereye-photographic reconnaissance aircraft and the rest has been thoroughly modernised. The F-5S are now equipped with a Grifo radar. They also have a 1553B-databus as well as a cockpit with displays, a new head-up-display and helmet sight. Elbit of Israel was responsible for system integration, although the lion share of the work was carried out in the country by Singapore Technologies Aerospace." Quoted from
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0005/FR0005d.htm -
"Singapore Technologies Aerospace Seeks F-16 Customers
Singapore Technologies Aerospace is looking to interest completely new customers in its Falcon One F-16 upgrade -- and is not merely restricting its business to existing F-16 operators, says ST Aerospace president Wee Siew Kim.
The Falcon One program is aimed at the F-16A/B family and early-model F-16C/Ds. It adds a host of new cockpit and avionics systems, including three new color MFDs, a new HUD, multi-mode radar, digital moving map, HOTAS controls, helmet-mounted display, and onboard datalink. "
Taken from aviationweek.com
http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/00farn3/topsto16.htm
It would seem rather unlikely that Singapore would upgrade other nations with helmet sight systems and not having any of their own? Anything to say Viper52? -
Arms Transfers to Singapore: 1993 to Present
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clinton Administration notified Congress of the following proposed government-negotiated Foreign Military Sales (FMS) agreements, export licenses for industry-negotiated Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), leases of equipment, and reduced price or free excess defense article (EDA) transfers to Signapore. The Arms Export Control Act requires only that the administration notify Congress of FMS and DCS valued at $14 million or more. Sales below that threshold are not recorded here. Congress has 30 days to stop proposed FMS agreements or DCS licenses from going forward. To block a sale, a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress must pass a resolution of disapproval. None of the following sales were challenged.
Note: Items marked with asterisks (**) have been reported in trade press but not yet published in the Federal Register or EDA database.
Date of Notice Description of Equipment Transfer Type Price
3/13/2000 **AN/APG-78 Longbow multi-role radar system for Apache AH-64D helicopters; Northrop Grumman/Lockheed Martin joint venture. FMS $25.9 M
8/16/1999 Technical data and defense services in support of manufacture of F404, F414, and T700 aircraft engine components and equipment. DCS >$50 million
10/9/1998 Support services for the T-55-L-714A engine used on CH-47 helicopters DCS >$50 million
10/9/1998 manufacturing license agreement DCS
10/8/1998 110 U2 Self-Propelled Howitzers DCS >$50 million
6/23/1998 8 AH-64D APACHE attack helicopters, 216 HELLFIRE II laser guided missiles, 4 spare HELLFIRE, 2 spare T-700-GE-701C engines, 2 spare Target Acquisition Designation Sight Systems, 9,120 Hydra-70 rockets, spare and repair parts, communications equipment, miscellaneous equipment, training, support; includes AN/APG-78 radar; Boeing. FMS $620 million
5/13/1998 10 F100-PW-229 engines as spares for the F-16 DCS >14 million
4/21/1998 Pilot training and logistics support for Lockheed Martin F-16C/D fighter aircraft program FMS $138 million
1/21/1998 AIM-9M for RSAFF-16 aircraft FMS >$1 M
11/28/1997 to meet RSAF' s annual ammunition training requirement FMS >$1 M
11/12/1997 Services and support for F-16C/D aircraft, 12 M61A120mm guns, modification kits, maintenance, training,equipment FMS $287 million
11/6/1997 Ten Boeing CH-47SD helicopters, spares, flight simulator DCS >$14 million
10/21/1997 12 Lockheed Martin F-16C/D fighter aircraft, support equipment, spares, training DCS $350 million
3/10/1997 Equipment for HAWK Phase II air defense system EDA $66,565
9/5/1996 Logistics support and upgrade of four KC-125 refuelling tanker aircraft; establish depot in country FMS $500 M
5/10/1996 24 McDonnell Douglas Harpoon air-to-ground anti-ship missiles FMS $39 M
4/15/1996 4 Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker refueling aircraft, including upgrade and overhaul and 4 spare engines EDA/FMS $280 M
11/20/1995 Lockheed Martin LANTIRN Sharpshooter infrared search and laser targeting systems DCS $77 M
7/10/1995 Pilot training, logistics support (including munitions) for leased F-16s FMS $90 M
4/3/1995 12 Lockheed Martin F-16C/D Block 42 fighter-bombers 2.5 year lease $12.3 M
5/23/1994 18 F/A-18C/D aircraft, four spare engines, 24 Sidewinder, 50 Sparrow missiles, 268,000 rounds of 20mm ammo, spares, and support FMS $1.5 billion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny, when did the RSAF buy 18 Hornets?? Perhaps this was confused with the RMAF hornets, but the RMAF only bought EIGHT!!
This is a sales table I obtained from fas.org -
Yup, I saw this some time back too. Got me quite confused at first, till some well-informed people from other boards told me that FAS.org had quite a lot pf pretty glaring errors. So, dont trust it too muchOriginally posted by Shotgun:Arms Transfers to Singapore: 1993 to Present
:-) -
Develop a UCAV and we will face the same problems as the US - not so much the problemOriginally posted by Joe Black:Here is something new...
How feasible it is to convert A4SU to drones (for SEAD purposes - to lure the SAMs to fire at the drones and SEAD Vipers to strike the radars), UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles), and UAVs spy planes???
I have this vision that if RSAF can convert some A4SU to UCAVs, then they will really be some force in the region.... BTW, wonder if the current technology is available to do so.
How is a remote console going to command an aircraft that will provide live images, target information and situation awareness? A UCAV is unlike the UAV which only job is to capture images and fly back home. A UCAV will need to provide the remote controller (pilot) to have the same situation awareness as if the pilot is in the cockpit himself perhaps through the use of virtual reality.
Furthermore, if the technology available today can provide the necessary bandwidth to download so much information to a single jet? How about a couple of fighters at one time???
Some really interesting thoughts... I hope this will generate a couple of comments from everyone.... tripwire, viper52, shotgun, et. al.
of propulsion etc, but the problem of C3. Command, Communications and Control.
Command - How much autonomy are we going to give to the aircraft? Remember, we are not putting a camera into the aircraft and letting the ground pilot fly the plane as if he's flying a flight simulator. It should be like the current UAV aircraft, where waypoints are fed to the computer and the plane essentially flys itself.
Communications - How can we ensure that the communications link wont be broken? The enemy will surely try to break our link with the UCAV, and this ties in with the autonomy the UCAV has.
Other problems are how do you integrate the UCAV's operations with the rest of the air-force? problems like flying in the same air-space, giving the chance of mid-air collisons surface. -
Yourfather, actually there are 2 ways of going about a UCAV.
1. Remote controlled links. Where a ground controller actually controls the flight and the weapons deployment.
This is used in a small scale operation. Technically, its the same as flying a UAV. In fact, such drones do not even bother with air threats since the A4 frame does not support a capable air to air radar.
2. Pre-programmed flight plan. Similar to programming cruise missiles. Mission updates are sent via satellites.
More capable of a large scale operation. It quite hard to jam or severe satellite transmissions. Neither do any neighbouring "percieved" threats have any ASAT capabilities.
In other words, if ST tech or Singtel starts launching another "communications" satellite, it would probably mean we have a relatively successful UCAV programme. -
dun worry lah, i am not as hot as i hv sounded, though my words were abiT hot...
anyway, sumthing to bring up:
In an issue of Pioneer (sep 2000 issue) that covered on the RSAF Flight Test Centre, i noticed in one of the pics a device called sumthing like "spin recover system" attached to its tail. anyone noes wat's that foR?
once again ppl... cool down and relax...
------------------Originally posted by Joe Black:oeitou, take it easy lah....
.....
So once again... relax... take it easy...
-------------
Berpegang Teguh Kepada Pediriannya
[This message has been edited by oeitou (edited 30 October 2001).] -
Would probably have the remote controller joystick on the ground to do the take off and landing, and a remote control station to do the mission flying. The remote control station would probably feature a virtual cockpit. This was achieve by NASA with their X-34?? project...Originally posted by Shotgun:Yourfather, actually there are 2 ways of going about a UCAV.
1. Remote controlled links. Where a ground controller actually controls the flight and the weapons deployment.
We can even crash one if a target of opportunity arises... just like what the Israeli do with their UAVs.
This is used in a small scale operation. Technically, its the same as flying a UAV. In fact, such drones do not even bother with air threats since the A4 frame does not support a capable air to air radar.
Just like the Global Hawk... however, one would need to have a dedicated satellite to do that. The UCAV without the persistent uplink to the GPS system is just as good as gone.
2. Pre-programmed flight plan. Similar to programming cruise missiles. Mission updates are sent via satellites.
But how many of these UCAV can one control at a single time? The uplink to the Satellites will impose a restriction to probably just a couple at a single time....
More capable of a large scale operation. It quite hard to jam or severe satellite transmissions. Neither do any neighbouring "percieved" threats have any ASAT capabilities.
Good tip...something to watch out for...
In other words, if ST tech or Singtel starts launching another "communications" satellite, it would probably mean we have a relatively successful UCAV programme.[/B] hee hee -
Originally posted by oeitou:dun worry lah, i am not as hot as i hv sounded, though my words were abiT hot...
anyway, sumthing to bring up:
In an issue of Pioneer (sep 2000 issue) that covered on the RSAF Flight Test Centre, i noticed in one of the pics a device called sumthing like "spin recovery system" attached to its tail. anyone noes wat's that foR?
once again ppl... cool down and relax... -
Basically the satellite technology would probably be able to relay more instructions to UCAVs than we can imagine. It might be a burst of short instructions or a change of programming (doubt so).
What i feel being the most possible would be a instruction to switch to a backup programme. Allowing the UCAV to fall back to plan B. All the sets of plans would be pre-programmed, and just executed at will, given instructions from satellites. -
You may be right on this. Data transmission/Networking technology is ever evolving... who knows what will be available in 5 years or 10 years time. We might be able to come up with an algorithm that can allow multiple video rely. Perhaps CNN has something in the pipeline that DSO can borrow...Originally posted by Shotgun:Basically the satellite technology would probably be able to relay more instructions to UCAVs than we can imagine. It might be a burst of short instructions or a change of programming (doubt so). hee hee.
... but that limits the UCAV to not more than a glorified Global Hawk. It easy to program an UAV for a recon or spy mission as the flight plans are pre-determined. For UCAV, the vehicles must either have an AI so capable of making decision to attack targets which are ever changing or moving; or be able to support remote presence, ie Virtual reality.
What i feel being the most possible would be a instruction to switch to a backup programme. Allowing the UCAV to fall back to plan B. All the sets of plans would be pre-programmed, and just executed at will, given instructions from satellites.
US/UK solution to the UCAV is to have at least 1 manned craft to command a few unmanned crafts. The pilot of the manned craft will designate the target or directthe UCAVs to their targets.
Alternatively is to use the drone method. Each UCAV is controlled by a remote station with the a ground-pilot controlling the aircraft. This will call for all the information to be uplink to the satellite and downlink to the control station at real-time. Very high bandwidth method. The remote station also has to purposely built to mimic the cockpit of the aircraft for the pilot to "feel" like actual flying of the aircraft. This technology is kinda available in the form of ACMI, but need some serious technology advancement to make this viable. -
It is possible to design artificial intelligence for the UCAV. I mean, all you have to do is borrow the AI codes from respectable Simulation games.
I remember when I took my first crack at Su-27 Flanker. It was THE toughest sim in town. In terms of air-combat, the AI was almost fantastic, almost impossible to beat given the restriction of the keyboard and joystick. Only problem was, the AI tend to freeze when a long range SAM is fired at it. It would just fly straight, popping chaff n flare and BOOM. Dead AI.
In anycase, there are many ways to go about handling the UCAV. Being the IT centre that Singapore is, we would probably see a mix of all of the above or something totally ingenious.
By the way, anybody heard of anything about robot combat units in the SAF? Supposedly combat arms such as high powered rifles and MGs mounted on mini-mechanised units. Kinda like moving-turrets. I sort of heard this rumor flying out from thin air one day. -
Can anyone enlighten me as to what the heck is the U2 Self-Propelled Howitzers... never heard of this before.....Originally posted by Shotgun:Arms Transfers to Singapore: 1993 to Present
10/8/1998 110 U2 Self-Propelled Howitzers DCS >$50 million -
Shotgun
serial numbers: All rom LM sources:
1988: 8 F-16A/B-15: 87-0397/87-0404
1994: 18 F-16C/D-52: 94-0266/94-0283
1996: 12 F-16C/D-52: 96-5035/96-5036
1997: 12 F-16C/D-52: 97-0112/97-0123
2000: 20 F-16C/Ds: not built yet; no numbers assigned
Total 70 aircraft less 1 written off in mid-air collision 1989/90
Source is from a aircraft modeler who works at LM, plus scources like Scramble, Combat aircraft and other journals. Combat aircraft listed the aircraft based at Cannon, plus from those I've seen from Luke, can deduce which ones from those 3 batches are at Singapore.
I will not be touching on this topic anymore, but all i can say is: Back up one's arguments/claims, otherwise don't say anything.
Now, back to the UCAVs: The US claimed it has used Predators to fire Hellfires over Afghanistan, did anyone read about this? I saw some newclip on CNN that said so -
Hmm...look at the recent photos of the VISTA, before LM terminated the program, it has a SRS chute fitted to it. I believe it will look something like that.Originally posted by oeitou:anyway, sumthing to bring up:
In an issue of Pioneer (sep 2000 issue) that covered on the RSAF Flight Test Centre, i noticed in one of the pics a device called sumthing like "spin recover system" attached to its tail. anyone noes wat's that foR? -
Heh heh....Shotgun I don't want to say anything about this. But I never commented whether RSAF had HMS or not, cos I know but cannot tell, so I'll keep my opinions/knowledge to myself, because I know I'm unable to back up what I know without exposing my sourceOriginally posted by Shotgun:It would seem rather unlikely that Singapore would upgrade other nations with helmet sight systems and not having any of their own? Anything to say Viper52?