Singapore's Next Generation Fighter
-
a lot? 1 is a lot?Originally posted by sbst275:It has become infamous as well, quite a lot of accidents involving EuroFighter.
gripen also have test n crash.... -
foga has make it clear, USAF mainly using boom refueling while USN/USMC using basket/drogue.Originally posted by sbst275:The JAS 39 is an pure recon plane. F14 is tomcat which can have recon cams.
As for refuelling, thks for making that clear
SAM, let's see Igla SAM, RBS70 SAM are the ones
i\'m so sorry get your facts right, Gripen is multirole plane, can be fighter, interdiction and recce, thats was "JAS" in Swedish means.... -
F-2 derive from F-16 blk 40....get your facts right again......Originally posted by sbst275:F-2 is not really the F16CD, they are not made by Lockheed, F-2 is F-2, F16 is F16
I make it clear, RSAF IS ONE of the biggest users of 67 sets in 2005. -
UK reports from newspaper is just pure BS......is just operational for Typhoon. Tranch 2 test is gonna start soon as the agreement as sign.Originally posted by sbst275:For Isarel, thks for that info. That means that there are some adjustment. But seriously, a small country of 647km2 can have 120 fighter jet is quite incredible
As for EuroFighter, I'm not anti against it, but such report from RAF is unacceptable as RAF is one of the users of EuroFighter. It is very damaging. Further more, this coincide with our replacement programme. It is also very alarming as well. In fact, this has been around for 1.25 mths already (If you're have noticed). This report was classified until a British Newspaper (The same as the one reporting that we brought 50 EUF) reported it. RAF later on reviewed the same thing as well.
I'm not yelling, but your say the EuroFighter is very good is in opposite of the report especially it is conducted by a user of the EuroFighter.
Rafale the french garment as agree fund for F3.
F-15K on the other hand i read that they want another 40 more..... -
No nonsense, it was reported by RAF in the endOriginally posted by duotiga83:UK reports from newspaper is just pure BS......is just operational for Typhoon. Tranch 2 test is gonna start soon as the agreement as sign.
Rafale the french garment as agree fund for F3.
F-15K on the other hand i read that they want another 40 more..... -
shld i refer it to http:www.eurofighter.com and http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net?Originally posted by sbst275:No nonsense, it was reported by RAF in the end -
You guys still here, the NGF debate is now over to the new Military Nuts forum, quite hot debate on the subject at the moment.
http://s8.invisionfree.com/Military_Nuts/ -
i think we should get the latest F-117/F-22 if US doesn't want to let us have the F-15 eagles+ some super upgrades which only they themselve have, a experienced wrestler with fairly good muscles
but old..
The Rafales are not battle proven and nobody is buying it..
The eurofighter is too new...not proven...a newbie wrestle but with big muscles but young age
A squadron of F-117 might be good to counter some radar and not only is the stealth design sneaky, the shape of the aircraft is enough to scare off any potential invaders..and furthermore
the aircraft makes so little noise...
Even with a F-16 or F-15 invading any other country...we would definitely need stealth and noise reduction to reduce any form of signature which will ultimately lead to enemy aircrafts scrambling to fight us -
It is made by Lockheed however, 60% of the plane parts are made by Japanese. Do you know that?Originally posted by duotiga83:F-2 derive from F-16 blk 40....get your facts right again......
Did you know that EuroFighter is unsafe said by RAF? I'm not going to argue as you don't believe it. It just like F22 where they are teething problem because they are new. However, this will affect its choice as it has received quite a lot of attention from MINDEF already -
You are talking abt Japan or Taiwan?Originally posted by duotiga83:i'm so sorry japan operate F-15C/D ROC using actual fact Blk 50 Viper but to to prevent hoha from China redesignate to F-16A/B blk 20 to sound less threatening
They need not to do that, China can also get spies as revenge against Taiwan sending in spies to look at PRC
-
The F15T offered to us is much better than F15K in terms of radar and weapons. A lot of USAF pilot are already ranting as it is better than theirs (Complain for what? They are going to use F22 in near future)Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:i think we should get the latest F-117/F-22 if US doesn't want to let us have the F-15 eagles+ some super upgrades which only they themselve have, a experienced wrestler with fairly good muscles
but old..
The Rafales are not battle proven and nobody is buying it..
The eurofighter is too new...not proven...a newbie wrestle but with big muscles but young age
A squadron of F-117 might be good to counter some radar and not only is the stealth design sneaky, the shape of the aircraft is enough to scare off any potential invaders..and furthermore
the aircraft makes so little noise...
Even with a F-16 or F-15 invading any other country...we would definitely need stealth and noise reduction to reduce any form of signature which will ultimately lead to enemy aircrafts scrambling to fight us -
They can claim that the Rafale and Eurofighter have advanced computerised gimmicks that would give any of the Playstation Generation Geeks multiple orgasms. Note the key word here is "claim".
Not war proven at all. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing with all its war declared on simulated targets in a video arcade. Nothing is proven yet.
Typhoons and Rafales are nothing but flying computer games, wait till someone pulls the plug out on them. One is manufactured by an ex-Communist and the other by a bunch of quarreling communities.
Ah.... as for the F15 Strike Eagle.... the power and the glory.
In the world of the combat aircraft.... speed and how much payload you can carry is everything, if you can't move fast then you need stealth.
The F15 Strike Eagle - Proven airframe design, Proven Gulf War veteran. Proven mission capability record. Proven in combat out in a real theatre. In the world of the combat aircraft, raw brutal power and the ability to outclimb and out accelerate is crucial.
Its time to separate the men from the boys.
F15 Strike Eagle - Air to Everything. -
My reply on the other forum to a similar post by Old Bird;
Combat proven over the past 20 years means jack-squat, if the design is so old as to be obsolete and would lose against the untried, unproven new boys.
If combat proven means so much, RAF would have persisted with Hurricanes over Spitfires, the F-86 would have been rejected and P-51s used against the DPRK over Korea, the US would have continued using F-105s against MiGs instead of F-4s over North Vietnam, and no-one would have chosen the F-15 in the 1970s, since there was the already "combat-proven" F-4.
"Computerised gimmicks"? Give me those anyday, if it means those gimmicks means I can shoot an advanced AAM at 60 degrees off boresight while my opponent is still trying to get me into his 30 degree FOV HUD. If it means I can see, shoot and scoot while hes trying to locate me for his missiles which need continuous guidance. If it allows me to run rings around him. Let me at those "gimmicks".
"outclimb and out accelerate is crucial". If that is the case, the Eagle will lose. Payload I have already dealt with a couple of pages back, for even the Strike Eagle never carries to its full payload on combat missions these days. If you can't move fast then you need stealth? Eagle is not that much faster, and in terms of stealth it is the worst of the lot.
The F-15 was a great plane, and will forever be a classic. But in todays environment and opponents, it's time has come and gone.
It is indeed time to separate the men from the boys. Time to separate those who are over the hill and past it, from the realities of the future.
Honestly, those defending the Eagle on this and other forums are really clutching at straws. -
so many many of the NGFs are we getting? initially it was mentioned in the papers that we're going for 20. but recently , if i didn't recall wrongly, there was a similar article on the papers that the order was cut to 12.
-
frankly all of the 3 planes got pros and cons
Rafale - PRO
- Transfer of some technology
- New and latest
- Manufactured by france, who has our cazaux air force squardron and our new ships build in france
-buying it will boost our ties
CONS
-over reliance on french technology
-if the ships fail in combat (worst case scenario)
and the air force fail den mati liao
-facing monetary problems
F-15
Pro
-combat proven over 14 years ago
-US-made
-experienced and guarenteed reliability
Cons
-old design
-doesn't fit into idea of NGF although F-15T is new with upgrade and advanced avionics
-no transfer of AESA / SEAD radar and those high tech stuff
-The design must function for about 30 years
that means the 30 years included from the 1st F-15 Strike Eagle produced + 30 years which the RSAF going to use
= 60 years
EuroFighter
-new and latest
-can fit into NGF
- more credibility then RAFALE cause 1 grp of countries producing..
compared to france itself
- speed, everything also quite good
-expensive
-hard to maintain
-no mentioning of transfer of technology
-funding problems , might hinder the more advanced research and radar which is going to be there in the future
-funding problems might affect the different variants of the aircraft upgrades..might take longer time
F-15 has not really any significant edge over the FA/18
my suggestion is to wait a few more years..
test flying is not enough cause problems might appear in future
use the $$ to upgrade our F-16 C/D stuffs
wait til 2010 save up buy about 40 F-22 Raptor and hide in hidden bunker den shiok liao -
If the shape of the P51-D Mustang was retained but the insides were modified with the latest air interdiction weapon systems, the engine redesigned and souped up... all the good stuff... would it not be possible for it to stand up against the fighters of today??Originally posted by Viper52:My reply on the other forum to a similar post by Old Bird;
If combat proven means so much, RAF would have persisted with Hurricanes over Spitfires, the F-86 would have been rejected and P-51s used against the DPRK over Korea, the US would have continued using F-105s against MiGs instead of F-4s over North Vietnam, and no-one would have chosen the F-15 in the 1970s, since there was the already "combat-proven" F-4.
"Computerised gimmicks"? Give me those anyday, if it means those gimmicks means I can shoot an advanced AAM at 60 degrees off boresight while my opponent is still trying to get me into his 30 degree FOV HUD. If it means I can see, shoot and scoot while hes trying to locate me for his missiles which need continuous guidance. If it allows me to run rings around him. Let me at those "gimmicks".
"outclimb and out accelerate is crucial". If that is the case, the Eagle will lose. Payload I have already dealt with a couple of pages back, for even the Strike Eagle never carries to its full payload on combat missions these days. If you can't move fast then you need stealth? Eagle is not that much faster, and in terms of stealth it is the worst of the lot.
The F-15 was a great plane, and will forever be a classic. But in todays environment and opponents, it's time has come and gone.
It is indeed time to separate the men from the boys. Time to separate those who are over the hill and past it, from the realities of the future.
Honestly, those defending the Eagle on this and other forums are really clutching at straws.
How about building it with high tech superplastics and and give it stealth qualities??
It would probably turn circles on the inside of an F16 even!!
So what am I trying to say?? The airframe and design is a proven airframe. In the F16.net.forum there is a picture of an IAF F15 that returned after a midair collision with its right wing completely ripped off leaving only about a foot at the wing root!!!. As long as its large stabilator is intact the F15 can fly - that is testimony to a sound aerodynamic design.
What makes an aircraft stealthy or not is the kind of composites used to manufacture it or else just give it a radar absorbing material coating!!
It may be an Eagle you are looking at on the outside but the insides and blackboxes are not the same anymore. Who knows what is the F15T capable of??
No foreign air force has bought the Typhoon or Rafale yet. Singapore should not be dumb and get suckered enough to buy a fleet of these and then after that pay the price of a finding out the teething troubles that come out with every new plane, car or product. And everyone knows that the subsequent model would be an upgrade based on improvements to screwups discovered in the original.
It would be a sad day if there are yet to discovered airframe design problems suddenly crop up after we have bought the jets. Typhoon and Rafale have not clocked enough years on their airframe to convince that they are good soundly designed planes, planes with good systems and gimmicks in them maybe but not good airframes yet.
So don't write off the F15T yet. Airframe battle damage survivability needs to be considered too. -
a serious mistake......Typhoon has a firm order from Austria in Tranche 2 while Greece is on hold.Originally posted by Old Bird:No foreign air force has bought the Typhoon or Rafale yet. -
What are you talking abt?Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:frankly all of the 3 planes got pros and cons
Rafale - PRO
- Transfer of some technology
- New and latest
- Manufactured by france, who has our cazaux air force squardron and our new ships build in france
-buying it will boost our ties
CONS
-over reliance on french technology
-if the ships fail in combat (worst case scenario)
and the air force fail den mati liao
-facing monetary problems
F-15
Pro
-combat proven over 14 years ago
-US-made
-experienced and guarenteed reliability
Cons
-old design
-doesn't fit into idea of NGF although F-15T is new with upgrade and advanced avionics
-no transfer of AESA / SEAD radar and those high tech stuff
-The design must function for about 30 years
that means the 30 years included from the 1st F-15 Strike Eagle produced + 30 years which the RSAF going to use
= 60 years
EuroFighter
-new and latest
-can fit into NGF
- more credibility then RAFALE cause 1 grp of countries producing..
compared to france itself
- speed, everything also quite good
-expensive
-hard to maintain
-no mentioning of transfer of technology
-funding problems , might hinder the more advanced research and radar which is going to be there in the future
-funding problems might affect the different variants of the aircraft upgrades..might take longer time
F-15 has not really any significant edge over the FA/18
my suggestion is to wait a few more years..
test flying is not enough cause problems might appear in future
use the $$ to upgrade our F-16 C/D stuffs
wait til 2010 save up buy about 40 F-22 Raptor and hide in hidden bunker den shiok liao
F15T speed, range is better than F18
F15
Speed: Mar 2.5
Range: 5400km (1 of the highest)
F18
Speed: Mar 2 (Hornet is less than 2)
Range: Less than 3000km -
i rather take EuroFighter...cause britain is smart they oredi 80% on completion only left on those high tech stuff which is crucial is not finished...but by 2007 i think the problems would be solved when delivery comes
F-15 is proven but cannot pull high Gs cause of its large body
the design is not as aero-dynamic also
We might have to use it against F/A-18 in the future...
judging by how we use it ...it might be a very fair fight cause both fighters appear around that period..
But the F-22 / EuroFighter -->> ( 4 nations ++ radar , AESA and SEAD and AIM-120 AMRAAM and the latest stuff we might be able to use it )
imagine at 2015 we got upgraded eurofighter without problems
instead of using it in live combat...its also quite similar in training exercises or manoevures.
and not to forget another squadron of F-22.
sometimes...
New stuffs need not necessary mean good and
old stuffs need not necessary mean bad..
FA-18 and F-14 is a carrier strike fighter
dun forget ^.^
if they just purchase the F/A-18 and don't forget it needs
a short run way it could be deployed very fast compared to F-15/F-16 which we has
wow if F-15 really had 5400km of range + our use of KC-135 air tankers i think we can even strike some places in the pacific ocean.. -
I think the things here in the topic is damn lame. F-22s for RSAF? Stop dreaming. I think you guys should go do some reading before posting here otherwise the whole forum will be filled with rubbish.
-
In the end the plane is just a high-tech machine. The technology only makes the job of the pilot easier and gives him the edge against his adversaries. Untried machines may yet be proven superior to their exhalted (sometimes overhyped) peers during actual conflict. Don't forget, every plane is untried at the initial part of their lives, you don't immediately become an expert when you start on something, do you?
-
That is just plain dumb. and shows a serious lack of knowledge of aerodynamics too deep to rectify here. I would suggest you read deeper into aerodynamics before continuing. Oh...and at the same time, some basic physics to start off first.Originally posted by Old Bird:If the shape of the P51-D Mustang was retained but the insides were modified with the latest air interdiction weapon systems, the engine redesigned and souped up... all the good stuff... would it not be possible for it to stand up against the fighters of today??
How about building it with high tech superplastics and and give it stealth qualities??
It would probably turn circles on the inside of an F16 even!!
You're suggesting the impossible.
Again, a terrible lack of knowledge is being displayed. Materials and RAM are just 2 of the factors. And not the primary factor to boot. The primary factor in stealth is shape, namely lack of sharp edge and corners. More reading up on your part needed.
So what am I trying to say?? The airframe and design is a proven airframe. In the F16.net.forum there is a picture of an IAF F15 that returned after a midair collision with its right wing completely ripped off leaving only about a foot at the wing root!!!. As long as its large stabilator is intact the F15 can fly - that is testimony to a sound aerodynamic design.
[/quote]
And what makes you so sure that the Rafale's or Typhoon's aerodynamics are not as sound. You've done the calculations?
I am not arguing that the design is unsound, but the fact remains that the design utilises 1970s concepts, materials and ideas. Things have moved on since then, its time you should.
What makes an aircraft stealthy or not is the kind of composites used to manufacture it or else just give it a radar absorbing material coating!!
[/b]It may be an Eagle you are looking at on the outside but the insides and blackboxes are not the same anymore. Who knows what is the F15T capable of??
[/b][/quote]
The insides might be new, but the fact is the concepts on the outside is still old...and as recent events have shown, starting to get long in the tooth.
Its just one of the many factor that require consideration. If we select it just because of this but loses out in all others then we, to use a local term, have stamps over our eyes.
No foreign air force has bought the Typhoon or Rafale yet. Singapore should not be dumb and get suckered enough to buy a fleet of these and then after that pay the price of a finding out the teething troubles that come out with every new plane, car or product. And everyone knows that the subsequent model would be an upgrade based on improvements to screwups discovered in the original.
It would be a sad day if there are yet to discovered airframe design problems suddenly crop up after we have bought the jets. Typhoon and Rafale have not clocked enough years on their airframe to convince that they are good soundly designed planes, planes with good systems and gimmicks in them maybe but not good airframes yet.
[/quote]
Again, if everyone adapted this concept, there would be no progress. Please don't try to flog a dead horse a different way, I have already answered this point.[quote]
So don't write off the F15T yet. Airframe battle damage survivability needs to be considered too.
The pros and cons of each contender is already discussed in depth on this topic many times before, as well as on the other forums. -
It's already started, which is why I prefer the new forum nowadays, as well as its features.Originally posted by eurofighter:I think the things here in the topic is damn lame. F-22s for RSAF? Stop dreaming. I think you guys should go do some reading before posting here otherwise the whole forum will be filled with rubbish. -
Well said, to take it to the extremes, if no one was willing to experiment with new technologies and new ideas, the mainstay in airforces would still be the Fokker Eindecker, tanks would be the old "Mother" types, and we'd still be using Lee-Enfield bolt-actions.Originally posted by Obersturmfuhrer:In the end the plane is just a high-tech machine. The technology only makes the job of the pilot easier and gives him the edge against his adversaries. Untried machines may yet be proven superior to their exhalted (sometimes overhyped) peers during actual conflict. Don't forget, every plane is untried at the initial part of their lives, you don't immediately become an expert when you start on something, do you? -
Just wondering if there is anyone in here who is part of the team that is evaluating the 3 airframe types?? Are some of you here the test pilots too, coz you guys also talk alot about air combat manoevures too.
Some of you guys posts very indepth and interesting articles about the 3 aircraft design backgrounds. Really makes me wonder if this is a forum for qualifed aircraft design engineers.
Come to think of it, how many of you guys here are CAAS or FAA qualified aircraft maintainers??
Anyone in here whose work is directly invovled with the rectification of our current supersonic aircraft platforms, and I don't mean as Crewchiefs but I am more interested in the opinions of those who actually rectify the aircraft?? I am talking about people who talk maintenance based on actual experience.
These are the people who should be commenting on the possible selection winner. All talk here is about aircraft capability, has anyone talked about the maintainability?? So what if it has all the gimmicks on board it ain't worth a jacksquat if the plane cannot even leave the ground because maintenance on the jet is difficult. High tech equipment equals high tech problems too.
If there are none, then we are all armchair engineers and Playstation test pilots, all commenting based on what we have read only.