Originally posted by weasel1962:The US F-15Es were bought in the 80s and early 90s. Even the typhoon, introduced this decade, had a major crash last August and required the grounding of several european fleets.
The Singapore F-15SG, which is again a new build, is actually equipped with sub-systems that are superior to existing F-15Es such as the AESA radar (that is now only being retrofit in stages to existing USAF F-15Es).
More than half the F-15SG fleet is now based in Singapore so they are home.
Its about 20 hours flying time to cover the 17-18,000 km journey from the US to Singapore. Anyone who has taken a trip to the US by plane would know that (and generally boeing jetliners fly at ~9XXkm/h or ~500 knots). The F-15SG can carry more fuel than the F-16s.
Why then are the F-15SGs relegated to as the RSAF strike fighters and the F-16s as the air defence?
And on a new topic, don't you think its not so cost-effective since in around 9-10 years time SG will be getting the F-35 joint strike fighter. So that would mean buying a "new" strike fighter and thne getting an even "newer" one a few years down the road
And coming back to the topic of air defence ships, I don't vote for the Type 45s because they aren't fitted with CIWS yet--only HMS Daring is getting some trials with the US Phalanx system. Building a all new advanced air defence ship without new missiles but no CIWS doesn't make sense.
Going back to the topic of air defence ships, I don't vote for the Type 45s since they lack CIWS--only HMS Darind is getting one (on trial).
CIWS is no longer as effective as it once was. In fact, it may be totally unusable against some newer missiles.
And amanda, you seem to have switched things around. Air defence is the EASIER job. Strike missions into hostile airspace are the harder ones and need a more capable fighter. Transiting from overseas allows for strikes against the enemy from unexpected directions instead of a super predictable one.
Originally posted by Underpaid:CIWS is no longer as effective as it once was. In fact, it may be totally unusable against some newer missiles.
And amanda, you seem to have switched things around. Air defence is the EASIER job. Strike missions into hostile airspace are the harder ones and need a more capable fighter. Transiting from overseas allows for strikes against the enemy from unexpected directions instead of a super predictable one.
So when the missile is a just a few metres away from your ship, you dont want to have CIWS? Then has the US been wasting its time arming all its ships with Phalanx guns?
Air defence is just as hard as Strike.
When the new type of missiles are a few meters from your hull, you're as good as dead, a CIWS would be useless against the momentum that that thing would be packing.
The CIWS stats have been out for so long, you think some designer isn't going to look for it's weaknesses? In recent cases, they boosted the missile speed so high that even a head to head kill won't divert it from it's main flight path by much. And you really don't need an explosive warhead nowadays. Remember the Shefield? It was sunk just by the fuel booster alone.
"Then has the US been wasting its time arming all its ships with Phalanx guns?"
Not any more they don't. They are changing to medium-calibres and RAMs.
"Air defence is just as hard as Strike."
And this is so much bullshit. In defence, you are working within YOUR own air defence system. Strike, you are working in your ENEMIES. So I say this statement is bullshit and just a nonsense post to try winning a failing argument.
Originally posted by amanda.lu862:Why then are the F-15SGs relegated to as the RSAF strike fighters and the F-16s as the air defence?
And on a new topic, don't you think its not so cost-effective since in around 9-10 years time SG will be getting the F-35 joint strike fighter. So that would mean buying a "new" strike fighter and thne getting an even "newer" one a few years down the road
On the first, that's incorrect. The F-15SGs are intended for air defence also. The latest news coming from MHB is the live firing of the AMRAAM at combat archer from the F-15SG.
The F-16s are similarly capable of ground attack (and in fact excel in that role). In any air force, the SOP is always to have the best a/c for AD up front.
As to the 2nd, that's a capability gap issue. Same reason why the RAAF chose a sqn of F-18E/Fs as a stop-gap to the introduction of the F-35As. In fact, the RAAF would be getting their F-35As earlier than SG.