our neighbours up north are countering all our steps!!!!
-
wat makes u say that singapore got Adram?...im interested to know....
Got also good.....dun have , we also will not be in a disadvantage...win win situation. -
Actually RSAF has 2 more As, bought as attrition replacements when the 2 As involved in the mid-air collision. Total number of As should be 5 instead of 3.Originally posted by Viper52:Official purchases
1987 - 4A 4B
1994 - 8C/10D
1996 - 4C/8D
1997 - 10C/2D
2000 - 20 (breakdown unknown)
Sub-Total 4A, 4B, 22C, 20D, 20 unknown.
2 Lost: 1A 1990, 1C 2002.
Total: 68. 3A, 4B, 21C, 20D, 20 unknown
Full serial numbers are recorded in plane spotters websites.
Source: I believe it was in the "Defending the Lion City" book and Flight International magazine (forgot which year). The A/Bs were bought before the then Defense Minister Yeo Ning Hong announced that RSAF was to acquired 18 A/Bs (which were later changed to C/Ds after re-valuating the Vipers vs the C/D bugs). -
So the total no. is still 70???
Viper, could you comfirm? -
Jane's World aircraft 2002-2003
Singapore F-16 total 58
F-16A-15OCU 4 F-16B-OCU 4 F100-PW-220
First aircraft A/C 880
first aircraft B/D 884 First delivery Feb 1988
F-16C-52 18 F-16D-52 12 F100-PW-229
First aircraft A/C 608
First aircraft B/D 624 First delivery Jan 1998
F-16C-52 20 delivery late 2003 note: includes unspecified number of F-16D-52 aircraft -
These figures are not complete. Did Janes mentioned the crash of the single A and recent C crashed in the States?Originally posted by duotiga83:Jane's World aircraft 2002-2003
Singapore F-16 total 58
F-16A-15OCU 4 F-16B-OCU 4 F100-PW-220
First aircraft A/C 880
first aircraft B/D 884 First delivery Feb 1988
F-16C-52 18 F-16D-52 12 F100-PW-229
First aircraft A/C 608
First aircraft B/D 624 First delivery Jan 1998
F-16C-52 20 delivery late 2003 note: includes unspecified number of F-16D-52 aircraft -
Butterworth simply the best AB in Malaysia cause they do not share the runways with any civvies flight.Even Kuantan shares their runways with MAS aircrafts.
The soon to procure MRCA -will be base in Gong Kedak -app RM 1B has been allocated for the base upgrade programmes.Gong Kedak shall be the main AB for RMAF by 2005 or so.Currently 321 sqn are based there -manning the Martello S743D radar. -
There has been some talk of these 2 aircraft, along with supposedly 9 ex-Thunderbird F-16As supposedly leased for training. Theres just one problem: serial numbers. No one seems to have got the serial numbers of any of these 11 aircrafts. Dig hard enough you can get the serials of all the aircraft RSAF has had so far: the 68 A/B/C/D bought, the 12 leased Block 42 F-16C/D since returned to the USAF, even the GF-16A in Singapore for ground instruction by ALS. Yet I've never seen any serial numbers of any more F-16As bought or leased by the RSAF other than the '87 batch of 4A and 4B.Originally posted by Joe Black:Actually RSAF has 2 more As, bought as attrition replacements when the 2 As involved in the mid-air collision. Total number of As should be 5 instead of 3.
Source: I believe it was in the "Defending the Lion City" book and Flight International magazine (forgot which year). The A/Bs were bought before the then Defense Minister Yeo Ning Hong announced that RSAF was to acquired 18 A/Bs (which were later changed to C/Ds after re-valuating the Vipers vs the C/D bugs).
So I'm tempted to believe these aircraft never existed, most likely the order was cancelled/upgraded to the C/D Block 52
I'll stick with 68 for the moment, thank you
-
I see.But tell me Harimau, what is the main concern of your government.I know Singapore is not exactly that much of a threat, we are not really inclined for war.So what is the main foreign threat Malaysia is having?
-
If Sg were seen as a major threat- i dont think the planners would insist on having a long range MRCA(minimum ops range circa 1000km)-hell Sg just around the corner and surely a smaller attack a/c(and cheaper) would do justice.
Spartly's could be a major flash points in this region....or maybe China???New leaderships in China means redeveloping the ties and 'back door channel ' all over again. -
nop...there not stated it...Originally posted by Joe Black:These figures are not complete. Did Janes mentioned the crash of the single A and recent C crashed in the States? -
I would tend to agree that your approach is correct (from public domain point of view). However, my ex-Viper pilot friend who was trained as the first batch @ Luke back in the late 80s days and later was posted to Pearce, and my cousin who is currently in Arizona told me once that don't believe in the number of A vipers you see although as much as I tried to get out from them, they wouldn't tell me the exact number. I do believe the 2 attrition purchases and I believe one of them could have even reused the same number as the one that have crashed. I have no hard evidence yet since the only Vipers I see in the air (or any official pics) are the C/D versions. I saw a lot of Vipers (from Tengah) but still haven't spotted any A/Bs for a long while.....Originally posted by Viper52:There has been some talk of these 2 aircraft, along with supposedly 9 ex-Thunderbird F-16As supposedly leased for training. Theres just one problem: serial numbers. No one seems to have got the serial numbers of any of these 11 aircrafts. Dig hard enough you can get the serials of all the aircraft RSAF has had so far: the 68 A/B/C/D bought, the 12 leased Block 42 F-16C/D since returned to the USAF, even the GF-16A in Singapore for ground instruction by ALS. Yet I've never seen any serial numbers of any more F-16As bought or leased by the RSAF other than the '87 batch of 4A and 4B.
So I'm tempted to believe these aircraft never existed, most likely the order was cancelled/upgraded to the C/D Block 52
I'll stick with 68 for the moment, thank you -
Joe Black, I've seen the A/Bs around Tengah and trust me, I've not seen any new numbers.Originally posted by Joe Black:I would tend to agree that your approach is correct (from public domain point of view). However, my ex-Viper pilot friend who was trained as the first batch @ Luke back in the late 80s days and later was posted to Pearce, and my cousin who is currently in Arizona told me once that don't believe in the number of A vipers you see although as much as I tried to get out from them, they wouldn't tell me the exact number. I do believe the 2 attrition purchases and I believe one of them could have even reused the same number as the one that have crashed. I have no hard evidence yet since the only Vipers I see in the air (or any official pics) are the C/D versions. I saw a lot of Vipers (from Tengah) but still haven't spotted any A/Bs for a long while.....
When I said serial numbers, I meant the Lockheed Martin/FMS serial number (eg. 94-0274) and there've been no reports sightings of serial numbers from the 11 F-16As claimed to be leased/bought.
BTW 94-0274 is F-16D 638, the bird on the static park at one of the Open Houses, so no classified data being released there -
I was told from a reliable source that some aircraft hangers are constructed underground with harden concrete surface.Originally posted by Viper52:Joe Black, I've seen the A/Bs around Tengah and trust me, I've not seen any new numbers.
When I said serial numbers, I meant the Lockheed Martin/FMS serial number (eg. 94-0274) and there've been no reports sightings of serial numbers from the 11 F-16As claimed to be leased/bought.
BTW 94-0274 is F-16D 638, the bird on the static park at one of the Open Houses, so no classified data being released there
And the fighters are alway combat operational ready.
-
Well, its quite well-known that the bases are hardened. I've had a Aussie who served in the RAAF tell me once that in the 80s, the RSAF couldn't wait to get the Aussie Mirage detachment out of Singapore and he actually saw the beginning of the "hardening" of TABOriginally posted by Orcishwarrior:I was told from a reliable source that some aircraft hangers are constructed underground with harden concrete surface.
And the fighters are alway combat operational ready. -
Rubbish!!! Too heavy, too expensive. The US will never sell it to Singapore, although I hear Taiwan will get theirs by next year...Originally posted by Doenitz:Would you guys believe it if someone tells you Singapore has M1 Abrams MBTs?
I remember a friend of mine whose father was an RSAF Lt. Col. He claimed that his father had seen the Abrams in Australia. Of course this is utter nonsense since the aircraft he says his father flies is the Fokker 50...
I think his father should teach him to lie more plausibly... -
the malaysian requirement for 1000 km range could be due to their needs due to the fact that malaysia is SPLIT apart into east and west malaysia...Originally posted by HARIMAU:If Sg were seen as a major threat- i dont think the planners would insist on having a long range MRCA(minimum ops range circa 1000km)-hell Sg just around the corner and surely a smaller attack a/c(and cheaper) would do justice.
Spartly's could be a major flash points in this region....or maybe China???New leaderships in China means redeveloping the ties and 'back door channel ' all over again.
under extreme circumstances... the RMAF might simply needs to move its entire air asset to either part of the malaysian divide....
couple with the fact that RMAF isnt really a big force... and in fact.. its relatively weakness in numbers... the ability to concentrate those few precious resources to the defence of either peninsula or east malaysia becomes even more critical...
As for entertaining the possibility of PLAAF challenging RMAF.. its kind of a boogie threat in my view....
first off... the PLAAF although very large... lack quality and the range that could see PLAAF patrolling so far south nearing the malaysian border without significant ATA refueling, carriers or forward airbase...is an incredible feat.. TO see PLAAF engage RMAF at such an extreme disadvantage is unbelievable...
secondly... the malaysian govt claim over 2 sprately islands are so far south and with so many contenders for islands far to the north of malaysia... PLA's primary foe... aint malaysia... its the viets, taiwanese and pinos... all having significant military power with the exception of pinos...
thirdly... in the eyes of the PLA... the key hindrance to PLA expandsion into the south china sea... isnt malaysia... ITS america...
Forthly... malaysia's MRCA purchase may not produce the numbers that is truely capable of holding off a determned PLAAF assault... assuming that PLA has gain complete control of the entire south china sea and has establish a forward base at taipin island...
5th... there is nothing to be gained from attacking malaysia as far as PLA is concerned... either economical, military or politically...
6th... in a war of attrition... malaysia is guarantee to loose... as it could never hope to replace lost fighters and pilots as fast and as massively as china can...
The conditions for a war between malaysia and china just does not exist as yet.... under the current geopolitical climate...
For malaysia to think that china is a threat... is overestimating malaysia's defensive capability... and against all logical analysis...
Thus... there are only 3 real threat to malaysia... THailand... indonesia... and singapore....
of the 3... singapore is the least threat to malaysia despite it having the most capable military of the 3... and unless attacked by MAF or forced diplomatically into a war... its safe to say.. singapore wont go to war for fun....
thailand's major security concerns are burma... not malaysia... even laos and cambodia outrank malaysia in terms of potential threat to the thais.... therefore... unless malaysia openly support thailands southern muslim separatist... its highly unlikely that the thais would start charging south (assuming a civilian govt is running the show)
indonesia... ... currently ok... but if indonesia break up.... god saves all of us... malaysia... east malaysia will be the first kenna shit -
do u think usa willing to sell their es-3 or s-3 viking?
-
i dun think so .....theres no export version of the S-3 and btw Singapore dun need a S-3 with the Enforcer and the LALEE around in the future......
-
The USN no longer uses the ES-3A Shadow. The 2 ES-3 squadrons, VQ-5 and VQ-6 have been disestablished.
-
Hi people,
a quick dig around about the number of Block 52 Vipers RSAF pretty much confirms Viper52's count:
See:
http://www.lmaeronautics.com/products/combat_air/f-16/f16_customers.html#Singapor[/ur]
[url]http://www.f-16.net/reference/users/f16_sg.html
What most people missed in their count are the 12 Block 52 (leased) in 1996 in the Peace Cavin II deal. The lease was for 2 and a half year which would have expired in early 1999. Given that RSAF has possesion of these aircraft still and training continuing at Luke AF base (where my cousin current is stationed - hee), it means Singapore had exercised the options to purchase and NOT returned them to Lockheed Martin.
Thus the count stands at
7 F-16 A/Bs (man, I cannot account for the 2 attrition aircraft that was supposed to be purchased to replaced the lose A viper in the mid-air collision)
18 1994 Peace Carvin 2
12 1996 Peace Carvin 2 (based in Luke AFB - leased for 2.5 years and option to purchase there after, still in RSAF hands =
RSAF exercised the option).
12 1997 Peace Carvin 3
20 2000
-1 Crashed by USAF.
---------------
68 Total
==========
BTW, in my opinion, I would upgrade the A/B vipers with MLU and PW 220E engines to make them comptible with the C/D vipers. Can't sell them anyway since the Thai decided to purchase ex-USAF ones anyway. Sigh! -
Actually, the 1996 deal is the most interesting one. The lease-to-buy deal was struck directly with LM and DOES NOT come under the Peace Carvin FMS sales program. Under US State/Defence Dept law, companies are allowed a certain amount of such non-FMS sales each fiscal year. So it is not called Peace Carvin II.
The Viper loss in May was a bird from this '96 batch. Source: AFM
From reports of foriegn plane-spotters, the Arizona and Luke detachments contain aircraft serials from all 3 batches (94-xxxx/96-xxxx/97-xxxx). An Aussie friend with the RAAF confirmed during Pitch Black the 5 Vipers that took part in Pitch Black 2002 also carried serials from ALL 3 batches.
Flight testing on the F-16 CFT program is quite advanced already, it has been offered for sale to export customers too I think. -
wa piang...see ghost liao
http://pub165.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm16.showMessage?topicID=767.topic
look at the statement about Singapore's purchase of a new class of Submarine -
During a recent visit to the Kitty Hawk, a S-3 pilot told me that the USN does not use the Viking for ASW anymore, instead using it fully as an onboard tanker. ASW is carried out by the SH-60 Seahawks.Originally posted by duotiga83:do u think usa willing to sell their es-3 or s-3 viking? -
Nah, I don't think RSN has ordered any A19, at least not yet. I believe RSN is heading towards that direction but I won't sure that A19 is a sure thing yet. Given RSN only recent purchased the Sjoormen class subs, the ownership cost of these subs plus buying new subs are just too much for the RSN budget, not to mention that RSN next focal point is the deployment and commission of the Delta frigates. It is reported that DSTA and Kockum are working on the details for a possible use of the Sterling AIP for a future class of submarines for the RSN, presumedly a Kockum or HDW design. So A19 or German U212 design are possibilities but at this point, I don't believe we are going to see any sub purchases.Originally posted by foxtrout8:wa piang...see ghost liao
http://pub165.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm16.showMessage?topicID=767.topic
look at the statement about Singapore's purchase of a new class of Submarine -
For Harimau: you contradict yourself too much, your tone tells it all.
For the rest: BTW, i thought USA wasnt allowed to share their M1-Abrams technology with anyone else? I thought it was made for America and purely for America?