Possibility of military collaboration with China?
-
As the title said, what do people think of collaboration projects with the Chinese? I admit, doing business with their businessmen is something that should be done carefully, but their weapons project are still under military control, so less "greedy". They do have some nice stuff that we can use, and at the same time, they also have several deficient areas that they can use help on. Places where we can help: 1)Aircraft engines-They're still dependent on Russia for these, no local production. 2)ATGMs- We can see if Israel's willing to let the co-designed Spike out if they can get something in return. 3)Light strike/light tank heliborne/airlift capable vehicles Pity they upgraded the QBB-95 or we could have rechambered a 5.8 Ultimax for them. What we might get from them: 1)Stealth tech for planes (J-20). Still using Soviet engines, which I bet they're really "happy" about. 2)Modernized cruise missiles. They have a lack of new missiles too, same problem as aircraft engines, which hinder them and we need something newer than Harpoons, which are honestly getting long in the tooth. A successful collaboration will also help open the Chinese market to us, and it is a HUGE market, the US has too much NIH syndrome/red tape to be a good buyer, and it'll improve our diplomatic relations with them. OTOH, Taiwan and the US will freak out.:P
-
brudder......................you know nothing of politics huh ?
S'pore is just a puppet-state controlled by the same people that control USA............
why the SAF has grown so strong since Lee Hsien Loong became PM ??
he's trying to use SAF to suck up to his masters...........the SAF will always side with USA...............
the navy will be used to delay oil tankers bound for China...............using piracy in Straits of Malacca as a bogus excuse...............
-
why bother to even helping the PLA?
once they get hold of ur tech, they will eat u up
-
Milo, it's only a matter of time before they develop their own stuff, might as well make use of the short time window to "help" them along and get some profit out of it. They develop it themselves, we got no diplomatic credit or tech transfer or sales to them, we help them we can get at least something back. Look at stealth tech, 1st America had it, no sales to anyone. Now Russia and China have it, can't sell to them even if they wanted to. Same with the rest of the stuff, they'll get it sooner or later so might as well make profit off them for now, in cash or tech. Susan, why do you even bother posting.... BTW the US owns us, Jews own the US, so does that mean Israel owns Singapore? :P And "she" thinks very small. Harass tankers? hah, board them, kill everyone, sell the cargo and ship- PAP earns millions of dollars and can say the evil pirates did it. But as always, Susan's the small time conspiracy theorist, only thinks small.
-
It's at least better than collaborating with India.
-
aiyoh, if such thing happen, there will be something called "citzen voting." and someone is gonna tweak the vote.
-
Malabar 2007: India, United States, Japan, Australia, Singapore Begin Massive 5-Day Naval Exercises
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3519
'Quad' denies plot against China
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Milo, it’s only a matter of time before they develop their own stuff, might as well make use of the short time window to “help” them along and get some profit out of it.
They develop it themselves, we got no diplomatic credit or tech transfer or sales to them, we help them we can get at least something back. Look at stealth tech, 1st America had it, no sales to anyone. Now Russia and China have it, can’t sell to them even if they wanted to. Same with the rest of the stuff, they’ll get it sooner or later so might as well make profit off them for now, in cash or tech.
Susan, why do you even bother posting….
BTW the US owns us, Jews own the US, so does that mean Israel owns Singapore?
And “she” thinks very small. Harass tankers? hah, board them, kill everyone, sell the cargo and ship- PAP earns millions of dollars and can say the evil pirates did it.
But as always, Susan’s the small time conspiracy theorist, only thinks small.
Well, that depends on whether they wanna repay the favour or not
So, if we are really going to do it, we better do it real deep, know all the details and trends and technological gaps
-
Why would China want to work with Singapore? Anything military that Singapore can build right now can already be built by China. It would be arrogant to think that Singapore's military industry is far superior when the reverse is true.
They have their Spike-equivalents and if they don't they'll go to source ie Israel. They can build ICBMs and increasingly more items than what Singapore is capable of building.
Why would Singapore buy from China? Everything offered by DCNS, Kockums, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, IAI/Elbit, Rosboronexport etc (our actual suppliers) are better than what's offered by China. When the Chinese actually built something better than what's offered by the above, no reason why Singapore won't buy from them.
It is ignorant/arrogant to also think that Singapore can fight China (even on US side). 1xICBM and bye bye. Even without ICBMs, no Singapore Government would risk DH-10s (which by the way have the range to reach SG) flying towards Singapore.
The last time someone tried to restrict international waterways i.e. Libya 1986, ended up very badly for them. Singapore's survival depends on free use of international waterways. To enter into any counter-action would be strange. Is the Government really that stupid? I don't think so.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Why would China want to work with Singapore? Anything military that Singapore can build right now can already be built by China. It would be arrogant to think that Singapore's military industry is far superior when the reverse is true.
They have their Spike-equivalents and if they don't they'll go to source ie Israel. They can build ICBMs and increasingly more items than what Singapore is capable of building.
Why would Singapore buy from China? Everything offered by DCNS, Kockums, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, IAI/Elbit, Rosboronexport etc (our actual suppliers) are better than what's offered by China. When the Chinese actually built something better than what's offered by the above, no reason why Singapore won't buy from them.
It is ignorant/arrogant to also think that Singapore can fight China (even on US side). 1xICBM and bye bye. Even without ICBMs, no Singapore Government would risk DH-10s (which by the way have the range to reach SG) flying towards Singapore.
The last time someone tried to restrict international waterways i.e. Libya 1986, ended up very badly for them. Singapore's survival depends on free use of international waterways. To enter into any counter-action would be strange. Is the Government really that stupid? I don't think so.
True,SG is like a small insect.One hit and gone.
Even if you do collaborate, they will copy the technology and sell it.
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 1941:
Malabar 2007: India, United States, Japan, Australia, Singapore Begin Massive 5-Day Naval Exercises
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3519
'Quad' denies plot against China
I fail to see the relevance Dal. Milo, exactly. It's a very serious commitment, all or nothing. I do see some good that can come out of cooperation, but it needs to be really deep, not just superficial. As for collaboration with India, I won't mind having an "in" on the Brahmos 2 project :) weasel, I said work with them, not smack them in the face. :P There are still areas where they are short, their "Spike equivalent" is the Chinese copy of the Sagger, very old ATGM, and they havn't really developed the concept of airmobile yet which could be helpful to them considering the size of their country and lack of superhighways. They're also dependent on air engine imports from Russia, their main production bottleneck. As for Singapore suppliers, some stuff they just don't let out. If we can't get F-22s, why not J-20s? Most people won't simply sell their stealth fighters, so we need some "pull" to encourage sales, hence the idea of collaboration (i.e we scratch your back, you scratch ours). Don't tell me Singapore's defences won't be greatly improved with stealth tech? -
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Why would China want to work with Singapore? Anything military that Singapore can build right now can already be built by China. It would be arrogant to think that Singapore's military industry is far superior when the reverse is true.
They have their Spike-equivalents and if they don't they'll go to source ie Israel. They can build ICBMs and increasingly more items than what Singapore is capable of building.
Why would Singapore buy from China? Everything offered by DCNS, Kockums, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, IAI/Elbit, Rosboronexport
I take it you mean the Iglas?
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
I fail to see the relevance Dal. Milo, exactly. It's a very serious commitment, all or nothing. I do see some good that can come out of cooperation, but it needs to be really deep, not just superficial. As for collaboration with India, I won't mind having an "in" on the Brahmos 2 project :) weasel, I said work with them, not smack them in the face. :P There are still areas where they are short, their "Spike equivalent" is the Chinese copy of the Sagger, very old ATGM, and they havn't really developed the concept of airmobile yet which could be helpful to them considering the size of their country and lack of superhighways. They're also dependent on air engine imports from Russia, their main production bottleneck. As for Singapore suppliers, some stuff they just don't let out. If we can't get F-22s, why not J-20s? Most people won't simply sell their stealth fighters, so we need some "pull" to encourage sales, hence the idea of collaboration (i.e we scratch your back, you scratch ours). Don't tell me Singapore's defences won't be greatly improved with stealth tech?Hey, good one
J-20s are the Chinese stealth fighters
We could copy the technology and use it for ourselves....we have stealth frigates, why not stealth or near invisible tanks?
-
Originally posted by alize:
I take it you mean the Iglas?
Yes. -
Originally posted by Underpaid:
I fail to see the relevance Dal. Milo, exactly. It's a very serious commitment, all or nothing. I do see some good that can come out of cooperation, but it needs to be really deep, not just superficial. As for collaboration with India, I won't mind having an "in" on the Brahmos 2 project :) weasel, I said work with them, not smack them in the face. :P There are still areas where they are short, their "Spike equivalent" is the Chinese copy of the Sagger, very old ATGM, and they havn't really developed the concept of airmobile yet which could be helpful to them considering the size of their country and lack of superhighways. They're also dependent on air engine imports from Russia, their main production bottleneck. As for Singapore suppliers, some stuff they just don't let out. If we can't get F-22s, why not J-20s? Most people won't simply sell their stealth fighters, so we need some "pull" to encourage sales, hence the idea of collaboration (i.e we scratch your back, you scratch ours). Don't tell me Singapore's defences won't be greatly improved with stealth tech?
If the J-20 is as good as it says, the RSAF/DSTA may consider. But same reason as why the RSAF rejected the Su-35 in favour of the F-15s, that will need to overcome IFF, system, maintenance, tech transfer issues. Its not just the plane but the system. It would be terrible if the J-20s end up shooting down airliners by mistake (it has happened for other systems).On the plane itself, consider if its worth getting a plane that flies only 50% of the time when another can fly 90% of the time. No one knows how reliable the J-20 will be.
Also, despite all the talk about how good the J-20 is, many people forget, ignore or plainly don't know what the F-35 can do. That is a stealth aircraft further in development, equipped with the latest electronics that the US possess etc. Most important of all, Singapore paid to have full access to info on the a/c. Clearly the RSAF will know what its capabilities are.
Missiles are another consideration. The J-20 can be a better aircraft but ultimately, a fighter will need to shoot down the opposing aircraft. No point having a fighter that doesn't use missiles that can shoot down the opposing aircraft. On the other hand, the Amraam is tested in combat and Singapore has the advanced variants.
Even the older F-15s has advanced sniper pods (besides AESA radars) that can detect and track stealth aircraft at range using non-radar techniques. The F-35 brings that one step further with internal sensor fusion. Do the Chinese have access to that technology?
-
I'd like to collaborate with Russia and get some S-3/4/500s.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
If the J-20 is as good as it says, the RSAF/DSTA may consider. But same reason as why the RSAF rejected the Su-35 in favour of the F-15s, that will need to overcome IFF, system, maintenance, tech transfer issues. Its not just the plane but the system. It would be terrible if the J-20s end up shooting down airliners by mistake (it has happened for other systems).On the plane itself, consider if its worth getting a plane that flies only 50% of the time when another can fly 90% of the time. No one knows how reliable the J-20 will be.
I wonder how India does it?
I guess they haven't flown any combat actions that were not planned and deconflicted way in advance. Or maybe they don't fly and don't base their various planes at the same time and place.
-
weasel, I'll believe in the F-35 when the 1st one is offered for sale. The way the American economy is going and with all the cuts and cost overruns, the Lightning II project is going to be difficult to bring to completion unless someone ante's up. Look at the F-22, all lines totally closed down, you think they'll accept building a totally new type of stealth fighter when they can't even maintain their pride and joy? China isn't in that bad a boat. And the F-35 is a holdover from the Cold War info containment times, i.e the modern sucessor to the F-5, go wiki up the F-5 development theory for the logic behind it, but long story short, it's a cheapo F-22 using only tech the US won't mind losing, not their top end stuff. That being said, we won't know how reliable the F-35 is going to be too, considering that it's still in the testing stage, same as the J-20. For all we know, both might turn out to be lemons (B-2 maintainance? Ouch). But your point on equipment compatability is a good point, AESA is a serious piece of equipment that needs to be intergrated, and parts compatability is a fairly serious issue which needs to be surmounted (STANAG anyone? :P) though the "dodgy IFF" thing sounds like excuse making. As far as I know, the only countries that have shot up airliners are, ironically, the US, Russia and Israel. (A Ticonderoga class's radar read the military ID off a C-130 and accidentally assigned it to the Iranian airliner IAF655, and KAL Flight 007 which strayed into Soviet airspace.) So the US isn't squeeky clean on dodgy IFFs too. BTW, the modern way to detect stealth nowadays is to use low frequency X-band for detection, FLIR is visual range only. And AESA is perfect for anti-stealth work due to it's multiple emitters. alise, I thought of that too, but the Russians need even less from us than the Chinese :( Unless they accept pure cash, and there is also the traditional equipment incompatability and reliability issues weasel brought up. To counter that, we would have to get into any project at the design stage or come up with a plans conversion and build it (ourselves?). One of the things that have impressed some US observers about the SAF is that we really don't care where the stuff comes from (French frigates operating American helos) as long as we can use it and it's good. Despite the US State Department getting heart attacks, I actually believe that the continuation of this policy into what may be seen as "enemy tech" may contribute to a good impression at the laymen levels. Provided we don't end up buying lemons... :P
-
The F-35 is more like an F-16, F-5s were available to everybody.
F-22s are expensive because numbers were cut by half. If the same thing happened with the F-35, it would be stupid and tragic at the same time. F-15s and F-16s can't be relied on to deliver air superiority for any longer, it would be cheaper to complete the F-35 than design a new fighter in the future.
I believe at most, the F-35B will go.
-
It really would be unfortunate, but I honestly cannot trust that the program is a done deal. I agree the will is there, but the cash may not be, and the major partners are all suffering from a recession right now. Most likely scenario, the 1st production run will only start after the US economy picks up. I estimate ~2018+. A long time to wait on a maybe. And I really question the role of the F-35. It's range and payload's more suitable to an interceptor than a strike fighter, it's a bit short legged and only 4 missiles in internal bays. Yes, they made a lot of noise about the external hardpoints, but the more you hang off them, the more detectable you are. Radar picks up the return from the missiles. So interceptor, yes. Air superiority, maybe. :( So you are right in more ways than one to compare it to the F-16. On the other hand,'I've never been fond of the F-35, seeing it as the chopped down export version of the F-22. Why settle for less when you can try to get a fully fledged stealth strike fighter?
-
There's already 97 F-35s ordered under the LRIP. That doesn't count the Israeli and Australia (14) orders which have been made.
The F-35A minus tanks will have the same range as the F-16C/D with tanks and way more than previous fighters eg F-5s. The RSAF F-16C/D & F-5s have been used as a strike fighter. If the F-35A doesn't have enough range, the past & existing Singapore Air Force has a big issue.
As to Alize's qn on how the Indians do it. That's the problem. They went ahead with the Su-30 and ended up with low serviceability rates in really inane issues like tyre shortage. That's why the 126 plane MRCA order will end up with French or EU. The 5th gen Pak-FA programme is really high risk from that perspective. No reason why it can't end up like the LCA that's going to be way obsolete by the time its fully inducted.
I like the S-300. I read somewhere that Singapore took a long hard look at that (together with the Patriot). I can understand why its not inducted. The US will never allow a Russian system used by the Chinese to have access to US-based IFF codes which I think SG uses. Its different with an igla directed by ground/AEW control that already does IFF. Too much friendly fire risk with a 100-200km ranged missile. Patriot too ex so we still have I-hawk.
-
weasel, they ordered it. Any idea when they are going to "receive" it? My estimate is 2018-2020. As I already mentioned also, we don't really know the capabilities/liabilities of the F-35 too. As for the comparison with the F-5 and F-16, you do realise those 2 are interceptors in concept? It's not only the range, but also the payload, interceptors tend to have a higher payload vs total mass and lower number of weapons per fighter too. The PvM affects range and performance. And yes I'm also worried about the payload on the F-16s too, though I do understand it's due to Singapore's need to multi-role. (2 bombs for the F-16. 4 max... well... maybe 6 if you really squeezed the pylons and want to take a performance penalty). And I do agree, pity on the S-300, though my suspicions are that IFF is not really the main concern, any proper radar should already come with the ability to do target identification and tracking as a stand-alone, not an add-on, unless it's a civillian search radar, I'm not sure about those.
-
The first production F-35A has already been delivered (and some of the lot 2 as well). Normally 2 years from contract. Lot 5 contract just got issued a couple of days back. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:d13182c0-eb51-41ec-a502-b73a7a83bf6c&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest The thing is that low rate production (LRIP) aircraft are not fully combat capable. It was meant to be retrofitted as technology are signed off. That's why the new chief of the programme was complaining over concurrency issues recently ie that it cost too much to retrofit. LRIP will cover over 8-9 batches. Thereafter it will be a MYP or multi-year programme which will attain a fully combat capable block. That's when most countries will await to buy. Those that signed up to the original F-35 partnership programme are allowed to buy LRIP aircraft. That includes the lowest level participants (SCP) which comprises both Israel and Singapore. Israel chose to buy LRIP aircraft and is targeted to receive their in 2016 though they are worried it will be delayed. LRIP aircraft are also more expensive. Singapore maintains an SCP office in Washington just for this programme. As for the F-5/F-16, I agree in part. However, Singapore chose esp for the F-5E to turn it into a strike fighter, whereas F-16 was originally designed as such. The F-5E can carry the centreline MER (multiple ejector rack) that can afford 6x 500b Mk-82s or possibly JDAMs. The A-4s carry the MER as well. That's besides the 2 weapons pylons which are Maverick-capable. The F-16 normally carries 2 tanks with 2 weapons pylon + 2 wingtip amraams/aim-9s. With CFT, its actually sufficient range to strike within Peninsular malaysia with 4 weapons pylons and no wing-tanks. The RSAF operates it with TER (triple ejector racks). With 2 pylons, that carries 6x mk-82s, JDAMs or the new Laser JDAMs. The LJDAMs are really a step up in capability. Unfortunately, its only 2x GBU-12 paveways per TER due to clearance issues. Its more than enough considering targeting issues. The F-16 was originally designed for single target alpha strikes per pass, though it can make more than 1 pass per mission. The F-15s on the other hand is now capable of multiple PGM target strikes per pass. That's a scary capability to take out 12+ targets in just 1 pass. The S-300 can do IFF. However, whether it can pick up IFF signals from NATO-based IFF transponders is another issue.
-
What A-4s... If there was a choice between using the F-5 or the F-16 for a bombing run, I'd agree, the F-16 is the better choice, the F-5 truly is a terrible choice for a bombing run. I also suspect the choice to make the F-16 the bomber of the RSAF instead of the F-15 is probably that 1) The F-15 might be more valuable in the air-superiority role and 2) The high thrust to weight ratio of an "interceptor" would allow the aircraft to return to normal flight faster than a heavier fighter as well as being more agile. (Actually, I think the F-15's T/W ratio is better, but it's probably more needed in overwatch.) Nice to know the F-35 is FINALLY being delivered, even if it's the lego form, but still doesn't make me a fan, let's be honest, Washington and Congress has a cap on how stealthy they allow a plane for export, and it's this cap that really turns me off and one of the reasons I'm avocating other sources. If your supplier deliberately handicaps your product from being the best, it may be time to go around, under, or over the wall instead of through it. Not just China, if the Russians can give us a good product, why not? (Though maintainance issues and compatibility that weasel mentioned are a factor too, though compatibility can be solved with software redevelopment/adaptors.)
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
As to Alize's qn on how the Indians do it. That's the problem. They went ahead with the Su-30 and ended up with low serviceability rates in really inane issues like tyre shortage. That's why the 126 plane MRCA order will end up with French or EU. The 5th gen Pak-FA programme is really high risk from that perspective. No reason why it can't end up like the LCA that's going to be way obsolete by the time its fully inducted.
I like the S-300. I read somewhere that Singapore took a long hard look at that (together with the Patriot). I can understand why its not inducted. The US will never allow a Russian system used by the Chinese to have access to US-based IFF codes which I think SG uses. Its different with an igla directed by ground/AEW control that already does IFF. Too much friendly fire risk with a 100-200km ranged missile. Patriot too ex so we still have I-hawk.
Is our Igla's cueing radar of Western origin? I don't know of any other country that provides a radar for their Iglas.
Underpaid, the F-35 is really more comparable to the F-16 than the F-5. The F-5 was a cheap fighter to be given away as foreign aid and was never used by the USAF except for evaluation in Vietnam. The F-20 and F-16/79 were intended as its successor in the 1970s, since President Carter originally did not clear the F-16A for export. They would have come to reality in the event F-16s were not cleared for export by the Reagan administration.