Say good bye to A4SU.
-
Nope... By then, it would be a generation gap.. F-15 is not really old, it has been proven in wars and USAF is going to upgrade itOriginally posted by storywolf:Why must we get a fighter to fill the gap when we can have the more advance typhoon to work side by side with F-35. -
Yes, the strike eagle has been proven in war. But its track record pales in comparison to the F-4 Phantom's record. So the F-4 is more "proven" right? So perhaps we should buy F-4s?Originally posted by sbst275:Nope... I think you didn't know abt the Typhoon's special case... It wasn't on show in the Asian Aerospace, there was only the flight mock up... EF2000 will be a costly plane if we later on use the better F-35...
Strike Eagle has been proven in war
Yes I know it missed a couple of Asian Aerospace... So what? Its capabilities are just not seen publicly yet. It doesn't mean that it can't fly? For RSAF to consider to evaluate this plane, definitely they have flown it right? Btw, the Typhoon DID fly to Singapore for evaluations. Though I haven't seen the Rafale fly here yet. Nor the F-16 B60, nor the Strike Eagle.... Catching my drift? -
F-4 no more in production liao, since 1979... But it had encountered problems in Vietnam War which led to arrival of F-15, F-16 (For F-104). EF2000 came in Aug, it was a RAF plane... RAF seems to be trying to scale down EF sizeOriginally posted by Shotgun:Yes, the strike eagle has been proven in war. But its track record pales in comparison to the F-4 Phantom's record. So the F-4 is more "proven" right? So perhaps we should buy F-4s?
Yes I know it missed a couple of Asian Aerospace... So what? Its capabilities are just not seen publicly yet. It doesn't mean that it can't fly? For RSAF to consider to evaluate this plane, definitely they have flown it right? Btw, the Typhoon DID fly to Singapore for evaluations. Though I haven't seen the Rafale fly here yet. Nor the F-16 B60, nor the Strike Eagle.... Catching my drift?
Strike Eagle flew @ AA as well as the Rafale... F-16 Block 60 dun know, but I know F-16E/F is coming up -
Saw it personally at least a couple of times before... no sign of break failure, just routine landings, but parachute was deployed.Originally posted by spencer99:What talking you?? The brake-chute is only deployed in the event of brake failure. Not deployed on normal landing.
-
yup....its not good in dogfights with then-adversaries MIG-21s...Originally posted by sbst275:F-4 no more in production liao, since 1979... But it had encountered problems in Vietnam War which led to arrival of F-15, F-16 (For F-104). EF2000 came in Aug, it was a RAF plane... RAF seems to be trying to scale down EF size
Strike Eagle flew @ AA as well as the Rafale... F-16 Block 60 dun know, but I know F-16E/F is coming up -
ya..me oso saw it at the air force open house tis yr..Originally posted by Zooish:Saw it personally at least a couple of times before... no sign of break failure, just routine landings, but parachute was deployed.
2 F-5s landing together den the F-5 at the back open up the chute first... the chute is yellow or orange in colour if i m not wrong -
Actually the F-5 has parachute is for a strategic reason..
dunno if i can reveal it anot..
should i? -
Anyway,not only the F5 will deploy its parachute when landing.The C130 or E2C HawkEye also do so.When they are landing on extremely short runways like the emergency runway in Lim Chu Kang,the deployment of the parachute will help greatly in reducing the length of runway nedded to stop the aircraft.
Do Correct me if I'm wrong -
Last year lahOriginally posted by monkeybusiness:ya..me oso saw it at the air force open house tis yr..
2 F-5s landing together den the F-5 at the back open up the chute first... the chute is yellow or orange in colour if i m not wrong -
But emergency landing, F-16 dun have... E-2 have hooks right?Originally posted by SpecOps87:Anyway,not only the F5 will deploy its parachute when landing.The C130 or E2C HawkEye also do so.When they are landing on extremely short runways like the emergency runway in Lim Chu Kang,the deployment of the parachute will help greatly in reducing the length of runway nedded to stop the aircraft.
Do Correct me if I'm wrong -
*Yawn*Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:Actually the F-5 has parachute is for a strategic reason..
dunno if i can reveal it anot..
should i? -
The original F16AB do not have brake chutes. but it was fitted on Nowegian AF F16s so as to enable them to land on icy runways where wheel brakes are not effective. Not sure whether our F16Cs and Ds are fitted with brake chutes. Typically the dorsal fin will extend beyoud the tail fin if they are fitted with brake chutes?!?!?!
-
Your correct, the parachute has 1 more use as well...Originally posted by SpecOps87:Anyway,not only the F5 will deploy its parachute when landing.The C130 or E2C HawkEye also do so.When they are landing on extremely short runways like the emergency runway in Lim Chu Kang,the deployment of the parachute will help greatly in reducing the length of runway nedded to stop the aircraft.
Do Correct me if I'm wrong
=X block the sight from enemy fighters =X j/k
Usually aircraft landing speed in american aircraft carriers is about 300km/hour in excess...
There are 2 ways to "reduce" the speed in a sense..when landing..
1.. is hooks , 2nd is parachutes , the 3rd i think is air brakes..
The 2nd and 3rd depends on wing resistance..
1st is mainly F-14 Tomcats which are about to be phased out in 2008 and F/A-18 hornets..
Considering that if TAB/PLAB gets bombed..the stuffs can still function..
The key stuff is , of course, the logistics which will be transfering ammo and fuel to LCK for example so that the plane to go for another "bombing run"
Lim Chu Kang is just 1 of the emergency "runways"
Don't think it will be good if we revealed all our emergency run ways...
lol..
Think that the millions of supply trucks and army trucks will be going to waste..
if a battle doesn't happen anytime...LOL... -
The NGF is not a stop gap measure while we wait on the F-35's. Infact i dont think we are even going to get the F-35's anytime in the nxt 20 yrs.Simple because production will be maxed out for the USAF,RAF and the RAAF who i believe the US see's as more important.Heck maybe even Japan would get it before us.....So the NGF is a backup plan incase the F35 gets delayed or we decide to give it a miss for a while.Stop thinking of the NGF as a stop gap for the f35!
On another note...the F-35 is to replace the F-16's in the USAF....so even if we do get them..i believe they would replace our F-16's and not the NGF's -
NGF is not really meant to replace the A-4, becos the role of the A-4 is mainly CAS & is quite limited in other areas for this old horse.
That role is actually slowly taken over F-16C/D with additional role of SEAD and even interceptor if need to be.
What we need for our NGF is an air superiority fighters against SU-30 where Malaysia , Indonesia and Vietnam are getting, thus we need a better air to air fighters in the near future.
F-35 will most probably have similar role of F-16Ds which mean CAS & maritime strike but one advantage over the F-16 is that it could be STOVL a/c.
So in a decade or so,we will retire the F-5 and below will be the orbat of RSAF:
F-16Ds- CAS , SEAD
F-16Cs- Interceptor, CAS ( this will replace the roles of F-5)
F-35s -CAS , maritime strike and maybe a sqn of STOVL type.
NGF - air superiority.
Some RF-5 might still be around and maybe then in need of replacement.
As our F-16s age, we might upgrade or even be fully replaced by buying more F-35s.
So the numbers for the F-16C/Ds will remain the same abt 60.
NGF will be abt 40s(2 Sqn) and the F-35s will abt 40s (2 Sqn and maybe 1 is STOVL sqn)).
This will keep the number more or less constant abt 150 a/c but with much more capability then we have now. -
have to correct you once again SSK my friend. air brakes are used on landing on practically all aircraft which have them. as in the case of the f16, since they're not mounted on the wings, they can and are used on final approach. for other aircraft, they're used after the wheels contact the runway. in the latter case i believe they're specifically called spoilers. parachutes, like someone mentioned earlier is to shorten landing dist. and...hm...seems that almost all the major fighting aircraft types that have shorter range seem to be equipped with arresting hooks. these are not used for carrier landings but for emergancy landings where arrestor wires would be strung across the runway. can see more when rsaf do the lim chu kang runway excersise. in general, flaps are used on almost aircraft nowadays too. as for the choice of NGF, i really have no opinion. but have heard and read that RSAF has already concluded their technical and capability asessment of the various planes and is currently researching the financial and political viability of the aircraft. soon soon...
-
f-16 uses their ailerons as flaps... called flaperons.
On the final approach, fixed wing aircraft extend their flaps which usually appear at the trailing edge of the wing to generate more lift when moving at a slower speed. -
Speedbrakes are not necessarily used in landing approaches. It all depend on the lift/drag ratio in the approach speed regiime and it varies with aircraft types.
The arresting hooks are only for emergency uses. However, when the hookwire is engaged, the runway will be closed till the aircraft involved is removed from the hookwire, i.e. nobody lands or take off right after the hookwire is engaged. -
To what extent? Judging from what you say, we can keep the A-4s even longer then.Originally posted by sbst275:I prefer older one... F-15 can be upgraded as well -
I hope we can get aircrafts that are not so loud, hadda bad experience with the foreign airplanes.Originally posted by storywolf:I hope we get the Eurofighter, because we have seen a lot of good weapon system out of the euro side. Yep the super-cruise is something we need, and its agilie performance which the other 2 fighters cannot match.
Also it will break trend of us getting US fighters, which will get us better bargains for the F-35. -
Em... A-4 is 1950's fighter jet, itself cannot tahan liao... F-15 can still be used till 2010+Originally posted by SBS3624G:To what extent? Judging from what you say, we can keep the A-4s even longer then. -
erm.....BaE uses A-4 from Israel for gunnery practice for the German F-4Fs.....plus recent Israel also upgraded their skyhawk avionics for AJT trainingOriginally posted by sbst275:Em... A-4 is 1950's fighter jet, itself cannot tahan liao... F-15 can still be used till 2010+ -
Stop using the proven proven and proven statement !!! If based on your stubburn arguement, Spritefires and mustangs are proven planes, then why F16 and F15 appear ?Originally posted by sbst275:Nope... By then, it would be a generation gap.. F-15 is not really old, it has been proven in wars and USAF is going to upgrade it
F15 is not old compare with eurofighter ? then answer the below question.
1) Can it do out turn the Eurofighter ?
2) can it do swing role as easy ?
3) can it supercrusie ?
4) got advance interget helmet sight.
Even a lay man out in the street knows, with each new car version, there is usually better engine and fuel economy. -
I wonder how's the NGF program developing. Long time never hear from MINDEF about that le (maybe i didn't notice). The NGF program has been delayed since last year(it's still delaying
). I think maybe it's due to problems relating to finance, politics (buy from US or French or Brits) and technical(which one is better)? Or perhaps they have other intentions in dragging the selection of a fighter?
Anyway my preferred choice would be Rafale because :
1) It's compatible with upcoming new missles such as Storm shawdow and Meteor
2) They are offering us a not bad deal with source code, joint radar development, BVR missles and such... (which is what we desperately wanted) The eurofighter's deal not bad too! (AMRAAM and such) The americans had been reluctant to give us these.
3) It's has a sleek design. Beautiful.
(nothing technical though). French are supposedly more artistic anyway. 
4) It would allow us to use more of their bases as training grounds for our pilots.
5) Considering Dassualt is quite established since their Mirage has been quite popular. ( Though F16 is far more popular :lol
6) we already bought frigates from them(they seemed quite reliable). ( and of course not forgetting the North East Line Trains) haha
Correct me if i'm wrong. -
Do note that france has not won a war for almost 5 centuries...Originally posted by ah_kwang:I wonder how's the NGF program developing. Long time never hear from MINDEF about that le (maybe i didn't notice). The NGF program has been delayed since last year(it's still delaying ). I think maybe it's due to problems relating to finance, politics (buy from US or French or Brits) and technical(which one is better)? Or perhaps they have other intentions in dragging the selection of a fighter?
Anyway my preferred choice would be Rafale because :
1) It's compatible with upcoming new missles such as Storm shawdow and Meteor
2) They are offering us a not bad deal with source code, joint radar development, BVR missles and such... (which is what we desperately wanted) The eurofighter's deal not bad too! (AMRAAM and such) The americans had been reluctant to give us these.
3) It's has a sleek design. Beautiful. (nothing technical though). French are supposedly more artistic anyway.
4) It would allow us to use more of their bases as training grounds for our pilots.
5) Considering Dassualt is quite established since their Mirage has been quite popular. ( Though F16 is far more popular :lol
6) we already bought frigates from them(they seemed quite reliable). ( and of course not forgetting the North East Line Trains) haha
Correct me if i'm wrong.