SINGAPORE SIGNS LETTER OF INTENT FOR JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
-
it was a mis print......the have rectified it in today's papers
-
The british have been using such strategy of turning a town into a temporaily base for a very long time. Each element in the neighbourhood is useful in turning it into a base. eg School facilities can be turned into basic C3 centre in terms of emergency and bus interchange can be turn into a technical service centre.Originally posted by spencer99:IMHO, it is one thing to be able to launch and recover a/c from out-of-base locations, but it is quite another matter to refuel, reload a/c.
We also need other supporting infrastructure such integrated C3I to run air ops effectively.
We also need to provide "ground defence" and point-air-defence to prevent sabotage and air attack. Try doing that to every bus interchange and see how much ground troops and air defence assets it will tie up.
I think Emergency Runways are to be used only in in an emergency as a stop-gap measure. We still need the fully equiped airbases to run air ops.
Do you u know some public facilities can be ultilise by the military in emergency? Golf course , the CTE tunnels are examples of it...... -
Air Forces Monthly January 2003
Road Warriors!
a rarely-seen exercise, held in Singapore once every five years, turns a six-lane highway into an 8,200ft(2,500m) improvised airstrip. David Boey reports.
Heavy Traffic of a less than usual kind tookto the road outside Tengah Air Base(TAB), the main fighter base of the Rupublic of Singapore Air Force(RSAF), on November 9 and 10, 2002. The occasion was Singapore's five-yeary emergency runway exercise, in which 12 RSAF fighters and an E-2C Airborne Early Warning Aircraft performed 20 take-offs, landings and touch-and-go approaches on Lim Chu Kang Road- within a tight span of 18 minutes.
The last exercise, the fifth since the RSAF first made used of the road in 1986, saw a number of 'firsts' in terms of aircraft types participating. It was perharps the last time A-4 Skyhawks would use a road as an austere airstrip for flight operations: the RSAF's Super Skyhawks are due for retirement before the next exercise in 2007.
Making their debut were a pair of single-seat Block 50 F-16Cs, a two dual-seat Block52 F-16D night attack fighters and a E-2C Hawkeye AEW airwraft from 111 Jaegar Squadron. The F-16s came from 140 Osprey Squadron, the RSAF's oldest fighter squadron, and from 143 Phonix's Squadron, which swapped its A-4SU Super Skyhawk for F-16C/D in 2000. The inclusion of the E-2C was novel, as the Hawkeye's wingspan is about a foot(0.30m) longer than the width of the six-lane road.
check from magazine page 40-41....the article is 2 pages long. -
The "Emergency Runway" listed above is right next to Tengah Air Base.Originally posted by duotiga83:Air Forces Monthly January 2003
Road Warriors!
a rarely-seen exercise, held in Singapore once every five years, turns a six-lane highway into an 8,200ft(2,500m) improvised airstrip. David Boey reports.
Heavy Traffic of a less than usual kind tookto the road outside Tengah Air Base(TAB), the main fighter base of the Rupublic of Singapore Air Force(RSAF), on November 9 and 10, 2002. The occasion was Singapore's five-yeary emergency runway exercise, in which 12 RSAF fighters and an E-2C Airborne Early Warning Aircraft performed 20 take-offs, landings and touch-and-go approaches on Lim Chu Kang Road- within a tight span of 18 minutes.
The last exercise, the fifth since the RSAF first made used of the road in 1986, saw a number of 'firsts' in terms of aircraft types participating. It was perharps the last time A-4 Skyhawks would use a road as an austere airstrip for flight operations: the RSAF's Super Skyhawks are due for retirement before the next exercise in 2007.
Making their debut were a pair of single-seat Block 50 F-16Cs, a two dual-seat Block52 F-16D night attack fighters and a E-2C Hawkeye AEW airwraft from 111 Jaegar Squadron. The F-16s came from 140 Osprey Squadron, the RSAF's oldest fighter squadron, and from 143 Phonix's Squadron, which swapped its A-4SU Super Skyhawk for F-16C/D in 2000. The inclusion of the E-2C was novel, as the Hawkeye's wingspan is about a foot(0.30m) longer than the width of the six-lane road.
check from magazine page 40-41....the article is 2 pages long.
Surely that cannot be counted as a "off-site" location. -
vstol version can land on landing ship tank. Each landing ship tank can store 2-3 aircraft.Originally posted by duotiga83:most probably we b buying ctol version: F-35A
Build more landing ship tanks mini-aircraft carriers for power projection. -
we can't possibly have road airstrip operations on most part of sg as it will affect the traffics.....we r not like the swedish , finnish or the poles(poland)...they are pro in that operations....Originally posted by spencer99:The "Emergency Runway" listed above is right next to Tengah Air Base.
Surely that cannot be counted as a "off-site" location. -
LST is meant for heli nia....we can't operate vtol a/c unless we have spain or italy type of ampbious ships.....Originally posted by paulho:vstol version can land on landing ship tank. Each landing ship tank can store 2-3 aircraft.
Build more landing ship tanks mini-aircraft carriers for power projection. -
i wont be surprised if it was possible in the future. But then isnt a helo more practical? No need for that sort of speed to do asw.Originally posted by duotiga83:LST is meant for heli nia....we can't operate vtol a/c unless we have spain or italy type of ampbious ships..... -
Who say ASW? To knock out their Pee Tee 91s in their own streets before they can get to our soil and create massive road blocks over there while we pound them to pulp with superior firepower...
-
having a stovl F-35 is mean to have mulitrole capabilities in our sorties, not just for asw: escouts, recon, air defense, sead, air interdiction...etc...u name it.....
our current lst doesn't have the capability n capacity to operate both a stovl n heli operations at the same time.....tts my opinoion -
Fren no offense but you have much to learn.Originally posted by duotiga83:LST is meant for heli nia....we can't operate vtol a/c unless we have spain or italy type of ampbious ships.....
Y not? SAF is known for it's very unconventional thinking.
Their thinking is like this, buy an IBM XT/286 dinosaur or latest DELL 4500 computer, which better? they will buy the XT series because they will upgrade it to be better than DELL 4500, then there is an advantage, everybody knows the specs of DELL 4500 because it's for sale everywhere but nobody knows real the true potential of my upgraded computer with very dirty/shabby misleading looking computer casing rite? I may even put a few top of the line powerful sparc IV processors inside the XT box and you wouldn't even noe it.
You put a pocket size carrier out there wif 10 vstol aircraft, fire abt 10 harpoons/exocets at it 2 billion bucks worth of equipment quickly becomes undersea static furniture.
But you put 2-3 vstol fighters on a normal LST and hide within the LST's extensively modified underbelly, then mix the LST in with the real troop carriers, who really noes which is what? -
my opinoion is from above....i did not say is not possible, i am just sayingt that our current lst cappaility if we placed a vtol or vstol a/c , is overuse of resources, our navy currently no need to have such a big capability yet....then next time when the naval heli is selected, does it means to operate all three types of a/c or heli (puma, naval heli n/or f-35) in lst? this doesn't make sense to mi. bside our heliabased on lst is not permanent, is like a stop over unless have a long range deployment then is neededOriginally posted by paulho:Fren no offense but you have much to learn.
Y not? SAF is known for it's very unconventional thinking.
Their thinking is like this, buy an IBM XT/286 dinosaur or latest DELL 4500 computer, which better? they will buy the XT series because they will upgrade it to be better than DELL 4500, then there is an advantage, everybody knows the specs of DELL 4500 because it's for sale everywhere but nobody knows real the true potential of my upgraded computer with very dirty/shabby misleading looking computer casing rite? I may even put a few top of the line powerful sparc IV processors inside the XT box and you wouldn't even noe it.
You put a pocket size carrier out there wif 10 vstol aircraft, fire abt 10 harpoons/exocets at it 2 billion bucks worth of equipment quickly becomes undersea static furniture.
But you put 2-3 vstol fighters on a normal LST and hide within the LST's extensively modified underbelly, then mix the LST in with the real troop carriers, who really noes which is what?Originally posted by duotiga83:having a stovl F-35 is mean to have mulitrole capabilities in our sorties, not just for asw: escouts, recon, air defense, sead, air interdiction...etc...u name it.....
our current lst doesn't have the capability n capacity to operate both a stovl n heli operations at the same time.....tts my opinoion -
Its NOT as simple as landing a VTOL on an LST an VOILA! You get an aircraft carrier, guys. First of all, can the flight deck handle the weight of the fighter? I doubt that the flight deck was built with the possibility of handling a plane in mind. Even if the flight deck could handle a plane, does the ship have the facilities to sustain and maintain the plane? You cannot just upgrade the ships facilities to handle a plane. Fuel placing, plane equipment etc, all these have to be well thought out and placed in the ship when its being designed, NOT as an afterthought.
-
Do not doubt the ingenuity of man's engineering skills and flexibility; and never doubt the resourcefulness of our DSTA and ST Engineering.
If the British can convert a container vessel into a temporary VSTOL carrier and sail a whole squadron to fight in the Falklands War, what can be so difficult with converting the flight deck to accomodate a JSF-VSTOL.
If the flight deck of a RSN LST can accept the weight of two Super Puma or Chinook Helicopters; will the JSF-VSTOL be heavier than any one of these helicopters?
JSF
Empty Weight 10,890 kg
Take Off Weight: 22,680 kg
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/jsf/jsf_en.htm
Chinook C-47 D
Empty: 10,475 kg
Max Take Off Weight: 22,680kg
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/helicopters/ch47/ch47_en.htm -
I don't think the British actually "operates" the Harriers on the container ships. There is a carrier "parked" on a pad on the bow. But this is to be used only in an emergency, for example if they somehow encounter enemy a/c or an enemy surface action group.Originally posted by Atobe:Do not doubt the ingenuity of man's engineering skills and flexibility; and never doubt the resourcefulness of our DSTA and ST Engineering.
If the British can convert a container vessel into a temporary VSTOL carrier and sail a whole squadron to fight in the Falklands War, what can be so difficult with converting the flight deck to accomodate a JSF-VSTOL.
The rest of the Harriers and copters are "wrapped up". The aircraft are meant to be operated from a proper a/c carrier or on land(for the army copters).
The Harriers are mostly for attrition replacement for combat and weather losses as the aircraft carriers left for the Falklands fully loaded with aircraft already. -
[quote]Originally posted by duotiga83:
[my opinoion is from above....i did not say is not possible, i am just sayingt that our current lst cappaility if we placed a vtol or vstol a/c , is overuse of resources, our navy currently no need to have such a big capability yet.... /quote]
let me give an example of how having an unconventional capability like this makes sense.
supposing in a scenario you are the invasion force and going to hammer some poor guy's nation 600km away. For this invasion you deploy 9 LST's along with escorts and designate it as BLUE FORCE, your 9 LST's say have a total capacity capability of mebbe abt 9 thousand troops.
Problem is the enemy UAV scouts spotted your force streaming in and radios in your position, the enemy digs in with a force of 20,000 troops, two times what you can deploy.
About 400km from the main objective, you split your force diverting 3 LST's along with minimum escorts to another objective further objective 700km away this force designated yellow force.
The enemy UAV scouts again picks up yellow force position and radio's in. The enemy thinks you are attempting to flank him, splits his force and quickly deploys 8,000 from his 20,000(in case you deploy tanks) to meet the new challenge.
Between BLUE and Yellow force, the distance now is about mebbe 500-600km apart.
Just when BLUE FORCE come into range of enemy shore batteries, the enemy suddenly catch death from above. A squadron of 9 JSF fighters deployed from the 3 LSTS strafes the enemy's main force and keeps them pinned down, the aircraft's low radar signature makes it difficult for enemy to defend against. BLUE FORCE lands with minimum casualties and begins the overland assault, the enemy is soon on the run, the war is over.
think about it. -
Originally posted by paulho:
i let others to descide the operation, i won't say much about it
[quote]Originally posted by duotiga83:
[b][my opinoion is from above....i did not say is not possible, i am just sayingt that our current lst cappaility if we placed a vtol or vstol a/c , is overuse of resources, our navy currently no need to have such a big capability yet.... /quote]
let me give an example of how having an unconventional capability like this makes sense.
supposing in a scenario you are the invasion force and going to hammer some poor guy's nation 600km away. For this invasion you deploy 9 LST's along with escorts and designate it as BLUE FORCE, your 9 LST's say have a total capacity capability of mebbe abt 9 thousand troops.
Problem is the enemy UAV scouts spotted your force streaming in and radios in your position, the enemy digs in with a force of 20,000 troops, two times what you can deploy.
About 400km from the main objective, you split your force diverting 3 LST's along with minimum escorts to another objective further objective 700km away this force designated yellow force.
The enemy UAV scouts again picks up yellow force position and radio's in. The enemy thinks you are attempting to flank him, splits his force and quickly deploys 8,000 from his 20,000(in case you deploy tanks) to meet the new challenge.
Between BLUE and Yellow force, the distance now is about mebbe 500-600km apart.
Just when BLUE FORCE come into range of enemy shore batteries, the enemy suddenly catch death from above. A squadron of 9 JSF fighters deployed from the 3 LSTS strafes the enemy's main force and keeps them pinned down, the aircraft's low radar signature makes it difficult for enemy to defend against. BLUE FORCE lands with minimum casualties and begins the overland assault, the enemy is soon on the run, the war is over.
think about it.[/b] -
Originally posted by spencer99:I don't think the British actually "operates" the Harriers on the container ships. There is a carrier "parked" on a pad on the bow. But this is to be used only in an emergency, for example if they somehow encounter enemy a/c or an enemy surface action group.
The rest of the Harriers and copters are "wrapped up". The aircraft are meant to be operated from a proper a/c carrier or on land(for the army copters).
The Harriers are mostly for attrition replacement for combat and weather losses as the aircraft carriers left for the Falklands fully loaded with aircraft already.
I think they actually operated the merchant ships as aircraft carriers. The picture is of the Atlantic Conveyor during the Falklands conflict.
While the Atlantic Conveyor only had a flight deck, the converted Contender Bezant had a flight deck and hanger. In fact, after the war, the British bought her and named her RFA (Royal Fleet Auxillary) Argus after heavy mods. So I suppose yes, it is possible to convert a merchantmarine, esp. a very large one, into a aircraft carrier, but I dun see Singapore doing that in the forseeable future. The converted carrier will require a few ships nearby all the time as it most likely would not have very powerful radar for detecting incoming threats, it would also be largely unable to defend itself from surface and subsurface threats -
The "Atlantic Conveyor" was sunk by a Exocet missle. Most of the heavy lift heilcopters (eg Chinooks) were lost together with her.Originally posted by laser51088:
I think they actually operated the merchant ships as aircraft carriers. The picture is of the Atlantic Conveyor during the Falklands conflict.
While the Atlantic Conveyor only had a flight deck, the converted Contender Bezant had a flight deck and hanger. In fact, after the war, the British bought her and named her RFA (Royal Fleet Auxillary) Argus after heavy mods. So I suppose yes, it is possible to convert a merchantmarine, esp. a very large one, into a aircraft carrier, but I dun see Singapore doing that in the forseeable future. The converted carrier will require a few ships nearby all the time as it most likely would not have very powerful radar for detecting incoming threats, it would also be largely unable to defend itself from surface and subsurface threats
She is one of two major vessels lost by the Exocets in the Falklands War, the other being the Type 42 Destroyer Sheffield. -
Website on Falklands War.
Atlantic Conveyor sunk on 25th May 1982 togher with some Wessex, Lynx and Chinooks helicopters.
http://www.naval-history.net/F47opsweek9.htm -
"Atlantic Conveyor" and her sister ship "Atlantic Causeway", as well as a third ship "Contender Bezant" were merchant ships, converted into what the Royal Navy termed as "Aircraft and Helicopter Support Ship".
They had flight decks and some had hangars.
The wall of containers were to help in preventing cross wind effects.
"ATLANTIC CONVEYOR" - aircraft and helicopter support ship (sunk by Exocet) 15,000 grt Req/flight deck/SC
"Atlantic Causeway" - helicopter support ship 15,000 grt Req/flight deck & hangar/SC
"Contender Bezant" - aircraft and helicopter carrier 11,400 grt Ch/flight deck & hangar
http://www.naval-history.net/F22mnships.htm
http://freespace.virgin.net/gordon.smith4/F18taskforce.htm -
AWST : Export Issues Bedevil JSF
The British worry that obtaining clearances for non-U.S. workers and other international issues may cause the project to lag overseas
ROBERT WALL/WASHINGTON
Frustration is building among U.K. government representatives over the snail's-pace progress the U.S. is making in export control reform, with even the flagship for cooperation, the Joint Strike Fighter, mired in delays.
Several senior British Defense Ministry officials have voiced their consternation that at an operational level deployed forces of the two countries work well together, but in defense industrial relations that spirit of cooperation is lagging. Britain's minister for defense procurement, Lord Bach of Lutterworth, has complained that "real progress remains painfully slow." And, he added, the U.S. remains "one of the hardest markets to crack."
In recent months, Pentagon officials have repeatedly touted the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) as a model of international cooperation and a clear sign the U.S. is committed to working more closely with allies. In fact, Pentagon acquisition chief E.C. (Pete) Aldridge, Jr., has said cooperation on other projects will emulate JSF. But several problems have cropped up with JSF, British government and industry representatives said at a recent National Defense Industrial Assn. and Defense Manufacturers Assn. meeting on U.S.-U.K. ties.
For instance, Bach noted that it takes the U.S. government a long time to issue work permits to British employees. British government and industry are the largest partners with the U.S. in the massive fighter modernization program. The problem seems to be a recurring theme, since British company representatives voiced similar frustrations in the mid-1990s when the project was still known as the Joint Advanced Strike Technology.
Moreover, JSF has made slow progress in pioneering the use of the Global Project Authorization--one of a series of reforms the U.S. government unveiled in 2000 as the Defense Trade Security Initiative (DTSI). The agreement would ease the sharing of unclassified data among U.S. and foreign JSF industry partners. After months of interdepartmental wrangling in the U.S., the State Dept. finally has given its approval. But now JSF prime contractor Lockheed Martin is concerned it could be held liable if another team member violates the provision of the umbrella license, said an industry official. "There is no implementation plan," added a second official. Even when implemented, Bach noted it will ease the handling of only a small portion of JSF-related data.
Want the rest of article? go pay for the thing and read it. -
wonderful!!!... with brits doing the work for us over the JSF export control... we can sit back and piggy back...Originally posted by cavsg:AWST : Export Issues Bedevil JSF
The British worry that obtaining clearances for non-U.S. workers and other international issues may cause the project to lag overseas
ROBERT WALL/WASHINGTON
Frustration is building among U.K. government representatives over the snail's-pace progress the U.S. is making in export control reform, with even the flagship for cooperation, the Joint Strike Fighter, mired in delays.
Several senior British Defense Ministry officials have voiced their consternation that at an operational level deployed forces of the two countries work well together, but in defense industrial relations that spirit of cooperation is lagging. Britain's minister for defense procurement, Lord Bach of Lutterworth, has complained that "real progress remains painfully slow." And, he added, the U.S. remains "one of the hardest markets to crack."
In recent months, Pentagon officials have repeatedly touted the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) as a model of international cooperation and a clear sign the U.S. is committed to working more closely with allies. In fact, Pentagon acquisition chief E.C. (Pete) Aldridge, Jr., has said cooperation on other projects will emulate JSF. But several problems have cropped up with JSF, British government and industry representatives said at a recent National Defense Industrial Assn. and Defense Manufacturers Assn. meeting on U.S.-U.K. ties.
For instance, Bach noted that it takes the U.S. government a long time to issue work permits to British employees. British government and industry are the largest partners with the U.S. in the massive fighter modernization program. The problem seems to be a recurring theme, since British company representatives voiced similar frustrations in the mid-1990s when the project was still known as the Joint Advanced Strike Technology.
Moreover, JSF has made slow progress in pioneering the use of the Global Project Authorization--one of a series of reforms the U.S. government unveiled in 2000 as the Defense Trade Security Initiative (DTSI). The agreement would ease the sharing of unclassified data among U.S. and foreign JSF industry partners. After months of interdepartmental wrangling in the U.S., the State Dept. finally has given its approval. But now JSF prime contractor Lockheed Martin is concerned it could be held liable if another team member violates the provision of the umbrella license, said an industry official. "There is no implementation plan," added a second official. Even when implemented, Bach noted it will ease the handling of only a small portion of JSF-related data.
Want the rest of article? go pay for the thing and read it.
-
-
regarding some1 post a thread that Flight international recent article talks bout sg sign loi for jsf would hinder the a-4 replacement:
this is wad i read 2dae
-is said that rsaf wants to reduce from 3 types to 2 types of aircrafts.
-jsf is confirm going to replace the falcon
-if 2 types, the a-4 replacement could get a air superiotiy type a/c( typhoon? my guess) to complement the jsf
- the a-4 order cld b the same wif the tiger II replacement
RFP out in may