our neighbours up north are countering all our steps!!!!
-
Not true, the M-1 IS supplied to some US Allies. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait have the M-1. Must be helping Uncle Sam contain Iraq.
To my knowledge, Taiwan just purhased 40 M-1s last year. Good for them, they finally have an MBT capable of matching the PRC. -
well, we've been over this a zillion times before... MBTs are too heavy for this region and blah blah blah...Originally posted by Typhoon:Not true, the M-1 IS supplied to some US Allies. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait have the M-1. Must be helping Uncle Sam contain Iraq.
To my knowledge, Taiwan just purhased 40 M-1s last year. Good for them, they finally have an MBT capable of matching the PRC.
but u gotta admit... the prestige of operating a top of the line MBT platform is considerable
if only we had merkavas... would the israelis sell i wonder... -
You can say that till your mouth is dry like I have CX, but there'll be those here who've yet to serve a day of military service who'll insist otherwise, and who have wet dreams about their favourite MBTs serving in SAF colours, based on knowledge from books. That what they mean when they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thingOriginally posted by CX:well, we've been over this a zillion times before... MBTs are too heavy for this region and blah blah blah...
I gave up arguing about this long ago... -
What do you think will happen to the Tempests? Replaced by a light tank/Apache combination or phased out entirely?
-
eh....i have been observing our RSAF's Charlie or the C-130 (known to many pple), to have paintings coat which reflects alot of light.The paintings seems very similar to 'lacquer' on normal.
Wont it reflect to much Iight, losing the plane's ablilty to Camoflage ( it can be spotted easily!), and for wat i know, if im not wrong , shiny stuff are more vulnerable to IR-homing missiles then IR-absorbing paint (on the Vipers which reflect so much light ).Even it is not vunerable to the missiles, y have such strange paint coating.
?
Looking at many warplanes pics of many countries, our C-130s are the very few with such paints coating which reflect much more light than regular aircraft paintings coat. -
u answer your own question. an ir missile looks in the ir specturm. those matt paints will not deter an ir missile becos the heat from the engines presents a more attractive target. no matter what type of paint, the engines and heat produced by air friction still attracts an ir missile.Originally posted by foxtrout8:vulnerable to IR-homing missiles then IR-absorbing paint (on the Vipers which reflect so much light ).Even it is not vunerable to the missiles, y have such strange paint coating.
glossy type of paint lasts better than matt type when exposed to elements like weather.
the charlie doubles as a sar plane, making the plane brighter helps survivors see the plane more easily. -
i dun think the Charlie would be a SAR aircraft with the Fokkers around, primary for maritime SAR and Maritime Survillence.
The Fokkers arent glossy.... -
sorry..the fokker is glossy...
but y is the charlie primary for intruding enermy airspace to drop paras glossy in the first place. -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
vulnerable to IR-homing missiles then IR-absorbing paint (on the Vipers which reflect so much light ).Even it is not vunerable to the missiles, y have such strange paint coating.
paisei typoerror..........
should be .....(on the vipers which reflect lesser light).......no wonder someone say i answer my own question. -
Someone in armour told me that there is a possibility of M1s or Merkevas in SAF.I don't know...Originally posted by Viper52:You can say that till your mouth is dry like I have CX, but there'll be those here who've yet to serve a day of military service who'll insist otherwise, and who have wet dreams about their favourite MBTs serving in SAF colours, based on knowledge from books. That what they mean when they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
I gave up arguing about this long ago...
By the way,I ORD two years ago.
-
if u ever got a chance(most probably u don't unless u are in the flying community) to join the caas air traffic control tour. you get to visit lorad at changi village area. inside there is a situation room where in event of an air diaster, a trained air traffic controller will co-ordinate a search and rescue effort. he will explain to u during the tour of all the available rsaf aircraft for sar. the aircraft are c-130, fokker, super puma. chinook was not included at that time of my visit. he has the authority to divert any of the above rsaf aircraft on none war missions to carry out sar over south china seas. during the silkair crash, he took over the sar although the area involved belongs to indonesia coverage as singapore had available resources and nearby.Originally posted by foxtrout8:i dun think the Charlie would be a SAR aircraft with the Fokkers around, primary for maritime SAR and Maritime Survillence. -
Hey, I have heard of some old US experiments in visual stealth... Appears that a plane wearing glossy paint and mounted with flourescent lighting can actually 'wink' out of visual sight!
This seems to be the theory:
People see planes by spotting the shadow of it against the bright sky. Therefore, a plane that is brightly lit in natural colours can actually blend into the background!
Info on this is rather limited (can't find much), but it appears that US sub-hunters in WW2 achieved some surprises over surfaced U-boats using this system of lighting.
Anyone heard about this phenomenon?
-
http://projectblack.net/popsci2.html
its speculated that bird of prey contains visual stealth technology as well
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/idr/idr021127_1_n.shtml -
wow.....learned something new today....thx Cavsg and Lefire for ur explanation..............
-
i disagree that being glossy can reduce visual detection......
yes lumination can reduce detection as it can blend with the bright background of the sky.
However for the Charlies, it is does not produce light....but reflect large amount of light. Someparts of the Plane reflects the larger amount light, some part reflects lower amount , still creating a visible shadow in the sky.
U see..if a plane produces light or u say it...luminous, the light 'produce and being seen, is somewat close to uniform throughout the plane, however things are different, when planes merely reflecting considerble amount of lights.
Uncle Sam Forces ...as wat info says, had done many of such experiments,however y they paint their Charlie will dull Camo, also practise by alot of countries too, Britain...malaysian... Israel.
Cavsg u Contridict urself by saying that being glossy it allow , survivors to spot the SAR plane easily, however in the next reply, u stated that light producing or glossy surface which reflect or produce light to be able to lower its visual detection.
Cavsg u reply as if u are in the Airforce.....are u in?
Thx...pls reply.... -
hello, when i say 'in the next reply' that light producing or glossy surface lower visual detection. didn't u read the articles. did i wrote them? light producing surface and glossy paint are 2 different things. u statement is contradicting. the aircraft mention in the articles adjust lights to match the background. the color of the paint is also greyish. a green bright paint can blend into the clouds or not?Originally posted by foxtrout8:i disagree that being glossy can reduce visual detection......
yes lumination can reduce detection as it can blend with the bright background of the sky.
However for the Charlies, it is does not produce light....but reflect large amount of light. Someparts of the Plane reflects the larger amount light, some part reflects lower amount , still creating a visible shadow in the sky.
U see..if a plane produces light or u say it...luminous, the light 'produce and being seen, is somewat close to uniform throughout the plane, however things are different, when planes merely reflecting considerble amount of lights.
Cavsg u Contridict urself by saying that being glossy it allow , survivors to spot the SAR plane easily, however in the next reply, u stated that light producing or glossy surface which reflect or produce light to be able to lower its visual detection.
Cavsg u reply as if u are in the Airforce.....are u in?
Thx...pls reply....
airforce? that is for me to know and for u to find out -
Hello..sorry for misinterpreting ur post.
btw, Charlies primary role is to deliever Soldiers behind enemy line, why would they coat it with glossy paint, to improve visual detection.
And there are 4 fokkers in singapore specially suited for SAR mission, 4 more for maritime survillence and at least 10 pumas and chinnok can be up in the air at any time ..y would they need the C-130. ( we have also landsort, convettes, Coast Guard Boats and Also one AWAC)
If im not wrong the incident of the crash British Lynx at SCS, never brought in the need of any C-130.
C-130 for SAR mission is phrase out when Fokkers are bought in. The Charlie will be call in when onli emergency arise.( very uncommon lah). if u r damm desprate at sea, will u miss a plane flying at 3000ft ?
One to improve visual detection, paint it bright red or even black, y must be camo with glossy paint..the oddest in the world Charlie's inventory.
can Cavsg pls enlighten mi..thx.
Sorry i post this questions many time, flooding the Thread, however is that, i have not receive any reply that i can be satisfied toatally thX..sorry for being ignorant. -
Why not sell the entire arsenal of weapons to M'sia? Then with the sale money, let us own just a friendly Uranium plant...
-
huh ????
-
can a fokker have the cargo capacity of a charlie to airdrop emergency supplies?Originally posted by foxtrout8:Hello..sorry for misinterpreting ur post.
btw, Charlies primary role is to deliever Soldiers behind enemy line, why would they coat it with glossy paint, to improve visual detection.
And there are 4 fokkers in singapore specially suited for SAR mission, 4 more for maritime survillence and at least 10 pumas and chinnok can be up in the air at any time ..y would they need the C-130. ( we have also landsort, convettes, Coast Guard Boats and Also one AWAC)
If im not wrong the incident of the crash British Lynx at SCS, never brought in the need of any C-130.
C-130 for SAR mission is phrase out when Fokkers are bought in. The Charlie will be call in when onli emergency arise.( very uncommon lah). if u r damm desprate at sea, will u miss a plane flying at 3000ft ?
One to improve visual detection, paint it bright red or even black, y must be camo with glossy paint..the oddest in the world Charlie's inventory.
can Cavsg pls enlighten mi..thx.
Sorry i post this questions many time, flooding the Thread, however is that, i have not receive any reply that i can be satisfied toatally thX..sorry for being ignorant.
in an emergency, any rsaf transport plane in the vicinity can be activated. so a charlie nearby cannot go over becos its not a sar aircraft? -
im sorry Cavsg , i dun wanna flame war, but y must a SAR plane drop in supplies? I thought all u have to do is to spot the Survivor call in boats or helicopter to pick them up.
My question is y a plane primary for intruding airspace with a secondary mission of SAR to be paint with glossy paint? -
Just wanna add something to the F-16 numbers earlier on, there are only 2 F-16A with the RSAF now, sometimes used for Black Knight shows, other than the one lost, another one was taken over by Singapore Technologies as a demonstrator for their Falcon ONE upgrade program, so it should be 67 Falcons, if the information form earlier posts are correct,
however, this site here lists less than 30 falcons!!!
http://www.geocities.com/spyder355a/f16.html
also, I heard that RSAF has 4 F-16 sqn, 67 planes in 4 sqn??
or are there more sqn??? i have no idea. . .
http://www.scramble.nl/sgbase.htm
this website is even crazier, it lists
SIXTEEN F-16A
TEN F-16B
THIRTY-FIVE F-16C
FORTY-FIVE F-16D
thats a total of 106 F-16!!!
PLEASE CORRECT ME!!! -
Read the 1st website again carefully, its lists less than 30 *Singapore-based* Falcons. It also list the purchases for the 2 US-based squadrons. Even the order for 20 birds in 2000 is listed. Still adds up to 70 (minus 2 write offs) to me.
4 squadrons are technically correct:
2 local based
1 in New Mexico, US
1 in Arizona, US
The F-16A/Falcon One is leased to STAe, its still RSAF property.
As for Scramble's numbers, I would like to see their breakdown on a contract by contract basis, before deciding who's correct. Unless they included the leased Block 42s which have since been returned. -
Thanx alot!
i see the light at the end of the tunnel now. . ., any rough idea of how many Vipers per sqn though???
just wondering. . .
-
Does an Airforce has a fix number of jet per fighter squadron.I guess Not right???Originally posted by laser51088:
Thanx alot!
i see the light at the end of the tunnel now. . ., any rough idea of how many Vipers per sqn though???
just wondering. . . 