Singapore's Next Generation Fighter
-
Hang on a second, you mean we aren't allowed to post opinions and points of view here, unless we're qualified to? Well then, it looks like we're gonna have to shut down the forum won't we?Originally posted by Old Bird: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.
As for new = gimmicky = difficult to maintain, why not try the USN's recent experience on for size? They were facing severe problems funding and maintaining the *old* F-14 Tomcat, and were facing serious serviceability problems. When the USS Abraham Lincoln and Nimitz took their *gimmicky* new Super Hornets to war, it was immediately noticed that the new aircraft, while not as capable as the Tomcat in some areas, particularly range, aircraft availability, sortie completion and overall efficiency rates went sky high. I dunno, but there *might* be a lesson in that story there somewhere? Now I'm no fan of the Super Hornet, and in terms of asthetics, will take the Tomcat and "Legacy" Hornet over the Super Hornet anytime, but I gotta admit that it is time the Tomcat should be allowed to retire gracefully.
As for being qualified and having maintenance experience, I have had shop floor (both "outpost" and depot level) front-end maintenance experience on heavy duty vehicles, so I guess you can say I know which end of the screwdriver is which, and I know the difference between something which is "easy to maintain" and "simple to maintain". And my current job requires me to have more than just a little knowledge of FAA, CAAS, JAA and EASA (and DCA) regulations. My company (who's parent is a global engine manufacturer with a big stake in Singapore's aviation engine market) is looking to secure approval for me to sign airworthiness certificates. Oh, and theres the small thing of me having a degree in Aeronautical Engineering as well. And I know of at least one other regular here who has a fair bit of Aviation Operations experience as well.
So, am I qualified to discuss this topic, O Wise Old Sage? -
The F15 is not obsolete. When we are talking abou choosing the NGF, it's not just a choice of the airframe.Considerations in the areas of availabilty of subsystems such as armaments,missiles,navigation/targeting systems developed for the aircraft are also very important.Compatibility of aircraft with existing equpment is also highly desirable.In our case,choosing the F15 will be a great advantage for the RSAF since existing missiles and electronic equpment like navigation/targeting pods for the F16s can also be used on the F15.On the logistics point of view,the F15 is definitely a winner.And remember the aim120 missiles, they are also cleared for firing by the F15s.comparatively,On the other hand,choosing the rafale or eurofighter will be a logistical nightmare.existing systems and missiles in our inventory may not be compatible with these 2 aircraft and probably, the RSAF will have to obtain a whole new set of inventory specifically for the eurofighter or rafale.oh and tat definitely means keeping a separate inventory at least for the ammunition for the built-in guns.of course, keeping a separate inventory may not be a critical factor in choosing the NGF but the total life cycle cost (TLCC)must definitely be one.it doesnt take a mathematical genius to calculate tat the TLCC for the F15 will be the lowest simply because there are that many more F15s flying in the air around the world compared to the rafales and eurofighters.The F15 will continue to be the mainstay of the US and Israel air forces at least for the next 15years,so we can definitely expect more F15 upgrade packages like radars being developed in the future.At this point in time,it is quite impossible to calculate the TLCC for the EF or rafales.Problems inherent in the EF have yet to be solved so the EF is alr out of the race for our NGF.France is the only operator of the rafale currently but we can definitely be sure tat the french will charge a premium for the rafale spares just like when they charge our army exorbitant prices for amx10 spares.Therefore based on price alone,the F15 wins any day.Originally posted by Viper52: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.
Low price alone obviously is not enough in arguing for the choice of F15 for our NGF.Performance is also vital.In this respect,the F15 also wins interms of the payload it can carry and the range it can go.Initially i was expecting the RSAF to go for more F16s but of course we now know that the F16 was dropped.the dropping of the F16 in the selection speaks volumes for wat the RSAF wants.It wants an aircraft that can carry more and fly further than the F16.The aircraft will be used primarily for deep strike interdiction.Your might argue tat among the 3 aircraft the F15 has the largest radar cross-section but i do not think that is a big problem since flying at low level with a comprehensive suite of radar jammers,this problem will be largely nullified.anyway the EF and rafale are not that stealthy even though they r more stealthy than the F15.Being more stealthy doesnt help tat much in avoiding detection with the advances in radar technology.Recall tat the F117 was shot shot down over yugoslavia even though it was supposed to be a stealth plane.Admittedly, the F15 may not be as capable in a dogfight when compared to the RF or rafale but this may not be a deciding factor in choosing the NGF.tat is beacuse dogfights may become less relevant in the future due to more air-to-air engagements taking place at beyond visual range.The RSAF doctrine is to take out the enemy aircraft on the ground before they managed to take off and then to mop up any remaining aircraft that managed to take off at beyond visual range.Dogfights will be the last resort.the F15 can perform this role very effectively and of course it can carry more aim-120s compared to the EF or rafale.
Anyway I'm very sure the RSAF has chosen the F15 already.Why did you think singapore was so active in supporting the american war in iraq,sending in LST and air tankers for missions in iraq.this is all part of the agreement in exchange for the americans selling us the F15.Why did u think PM Goh and Teo chee hean visited the US recently?To seal the F15 contract before the November Presidential elections in America of course.oh and of course,as part of the deal in supporting the americans in iraq,the aim-120s will now be on singapore soil already.For multi-billion deals,the mindef will always stick to the tried-and-tested and battle-proven like the F16 and apaches.It wont be any different this time.
As for u saying the F15 is obsolete and no match for the EF or rafale.i suggest u should refer to the israelis for confirmation. -
most of you all forget 1 thing about F-15
is the most expensive airframe among 3 of the aircrafts....... -
and pls people...don't say RSAF have selected F-15T ALREADY....just like the rumour about Blk 60 F-16E/F selected in the top 3 NGF
-
Nope, in terms of total pricing, the EF2000 is the most ex.Originally posted by duotiga83:most of you all forget 1 thing about F-15 is the most expensive airframe among 3 of the aircrafts.......
Why, the Euro currency has shot up -
Rather, MINDEF is happy with the F15TOriginally posted by duotiga83:and pls people...don't say RSAF have selected F-15T ALREADY....just like the rumour about Blk 60 F-16E/F selected in the top 3 NGF
The EF2000 is gonna to get the most attention after 1 report -
I totally agree that the RSAF should get the F-15S.One might comment that the EF2000, or the Rafale F3 may be newer in design and have more new-fangled stuff.However, we should not forget that this is primarily a programme which will bridge the gap between our Vipers and the JSF.The F-15 already outperforms the aircraft we currently have, and is quite nicely configured to take over the deep strike/bomber role that the A4SU currently undertakes.The Eurofighter may be able to supercruise but we should not base that as one major criteria for selection.After all, why bother trying to develop a comprehensive air-to-air refueling system from scratch and learning all its salient points when you are only concerned with combat radius based on fuel amount from take off.Rafale is not battle-proven and the EF2000 has already met with many hiccups.When it comes to the Army, singapore may take their chances with indigenous equipment.But when it comes to aviation, I do not think the policy of the ministry is that of risk-taking, especially when the risks do not constiute any radical experimentation in the form of unknown technology.The Israelis use the F-15 and I feel we may see their magic done on some Eagles that are flying our way probably quite soon.
-
Sigh...the defenders of the F-15 keep on flogging the same dead horses here, from Page 1 of this thread to now. I'm tired to repeating the same old facts again and again, so I'll keep my answers short and snappy.Originally posted by kingkhong79:The F15 is not obsolete. When we are talking abou choosing the NGF, it's not just a choice of the airframe.Considerations in the areas of availabilty of subsystems such as armaments,missiles,navigation/targeting systems developed for the aircraft are also very important.Compatibility of aircraft with existing equpment is also highly desirable.In our case,choosing the F15 will be a great advantage for the RSAF since existing missiles and electronic equpment like navigation/targeting pods for the F16s can also be used on the F15.On the logistics point of view,the F15 is definitely a winner.And remember the aim120 missiles, they are also cleared for firing by the F15s.
The logistical commonality is a plus in the Eagle's favour, but these must be balanced with the fact that qualitatively, the European equipment is newer, and are all as good if not even better. The AIM-120 is a classic case.
5 years is quite a bit of time to iron out bugs.comparatively,On the other hand,choosing the rafale or eurofighter will be a logistical nightmare.existing systems and missiles in our inventory may not be compatible with these 2 aircraft and probably, the RSAF will have to obtain a whole new set of inventory specifically for the eurofighter or rafale.oh and tat definitely means keeping a separate inventory at least for the ammunition for the built-in guns.of course, keeping a separate inventory may not be a critical factor in choosing the NGF but the total life cycle cost (TLCC)must definitely be one.it doesnt take a mathematical genius to calculate tat the TLCC for the F15 will be the lowest simply because there are that many more F15s flying in the air around the world compared to the rafales and eurofighters.The F15 will continue to be the mainstay of the US and Israel air forces at least for the next 15years,so we can definitely expect more F15 upgrade packages like radars being developed in the future.[/quote]
15 years? By the time we get the NGF delivered, 5 years would have passed, and by your reckoning, theres only 10 more years use by the US and Israel.
At this point in time,it is quite impossible to calculate the TLCC for the EF or rafales.Problems inherent in the EF have yet to be solved so the EF is alr out of the race for our NGF.
Have stated my case on this. Both payload and range are not that important considerations any more.
Low price alone obviously is not enough in arguing for the choice of F15 for our NGF.Performance is also vital.In this respect,the F15 also wins interms of the payload it can carry and the range it can go.I have seen a lot of news articles pointing to the fact that air-to-air is primary, with strike as a more secondary concern. Please get your facts right before plucking nonsense out of thin air (as usual).
Initially i was expecting the RSAF to go for more F16s but of course we now know that the F16 was dropped.the dropping of the F16 in the selection speaks volumes for wat the RSAF wants.It wants an aircraft that can carry more and fly further than the F16.The aircraft will be used primarily for deep strike interdiction.
Low level? What decade do you live in? I've addressed this issue a while back on this thread. Stop whipping the deceased mare.
Your might argue tat among the 3 aircraft the F15 has the largest radar cross-section but i do not think that is a big problem since flying at low level with a comprehensive suite of radar jammers,this problem will be largely nullified.anyway the EF and rafale are not that stealthy even though they r more stealthy than the F15. Being more stealthy doesnt help tat much in avoiding detection with the advances in radar technology.Recall tat the F117 was shot shot down over yugoslavia even though it was supposed to be a stealth plane.
Comprehensive suite of jammers? More so than Rafale?
That bit of lower RCS might make the difference is seeing and shooting down your opponent in BVR.
Did you realise how much effort went into shooting down that *ONE* F-117? Besides, the American's complacency made it a lot easier for the YugoslavsYup. Thats the same reasoning that saw both the US and USSR ditching guns on their most modern fighters in the 1960s. The Vietnam happened...and the rest, as they say, is history.
Admittedly, the F15 may not be as capable in a dogfight when compared to the RF or rafale but this may not be a deciding factor in choosing the NGF.tat is beacuse dogfights may become less relevant in the future due to more air-to-air engagements taking place at beyond visual range.
Yes, thats probably why the RSAF is so keen on setting up ACM fights against the French, Americans, Australians, British, New Zealanders (previously) and Indians.
The RSAF doctrine is to take out the enemy aircraft on the ground before they managed to take off and then to mop up any remaining aircraft that managed to take off at beyond visual range.Dogfights will be the last resort.More effective than Typhoon and Rafale? I'd like to see concrete proof of that statement. Or are you indulging in fact-plucking again?
the F15 can perform this role very effectively and of course it can carry more aim-120s compared to the EF or rafale.
And again
Anyway I'm very sure the RSAF has chosen the F15 already.Well talk about reading too much into something!
Why did you think singapore was so active in supporting the american war in iraq,sending in LST and air tankers for missions in iraq.this is all part of the agreement in exchange for the americans selling us the F15.Why did u think PM Goh and Teo chee hean visited the US recently?To seal the F15 contract before the November Presidential elections in America of course.
[quote]
As for u saying the F15 is obsolete and no match for the EF or rafale.i suggest u should refer to the israelis for confirmation.
For being obsolete, when did I say that?
As for being no match, why? Did the Israelis pit their F-15s against the Typhoon and Rafale?
Sheesh... -
for your info, pls refer to JDW i have the article here want me to quote??Originally posted by sbst275:Nope, in terms of total pricing, the EF2000 is the most ex.
Why, the Euro currency has shot up -
Viper52,Originally posted by Viper52:Hang on a second, you mean we aren't allowed to post opinions and points of view here, unless we're qualified to? Well then, it looks like we're gonna have to shut down the forum won't we?
As for new = gimmicky = difficult to maintain, why not try the USN's recent experience on for size? They were facing severe problems funding and maintaining the *old* F-14 Tomcat, and were facing serious serviceability problems. When the USS Abraham Lincoln and Nimitz took their *gimmicky* new Super Hornets to war, it was immediately noticed that the new aircraft, while not as capable as the Tomcat in some areas, particularly range, aircraft availability, sortie completion and overall efficiency rates went sky high. I dunno, but there *might* be a lesson in that story there somewhere? Now I'm no fan of the Super Hornet, and in terms of asthetics, will take the Tomcat and "Legacy" Hornet over the Super Hornet anytime, but I gotta admit that it is time the Tomcat should be allowed to retire gracefully.
As for being qualified and having maintenance experience, I have had shop floor (both "outpost" and depot level) front-end maintenance experience on heavy duty vehicles, so I guess you can say I know which end of the screwdriver is which, and I know the difference between something which is "easy to maintain" and "simple to maintain". And my current job requires me to have more than just a little knowledge of FAA, CAAS, JAA and EASA (and DCA) regulations. My company (who's parent is a global engine manufacturer with a big stake in Singapore's aviation engine market) is looking to secure approval for me to sign airworthiness certificates. Oh, and theres the small thing of me having a degree in Aeronautical Engineering as well. And I know of at least one other regular here who has a fair bit of Aviation Operations experience as well.
So, am I qualified to discuss this topic, O Wise Old Sage?
You talk I listen.
Yep, you are right. This is a forum where anyone and everyone can talk like a rocket scientist.
Your current job requires you to have a little knowledge of FAA, CAAS etc etc.....
Mind you a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I just asked a question about the qualifications of the people in here .... no need to get your knickers all twisted. You qualified, you qualified, it was my personal opinion only. I hope I am entitled that.
Just because I put forward some of my views on an aircraft other than your favourite it does not mean you can put me down like as though you know everything about aircraft maintenance and aircraft design.
For that matter you don't even know what my profession is.
There is no need for you to comment about what I said about souping up the P51-D Mustang. What I put forward was a scenario. No country keeps their aircraft stock standard, meaning having all OEM parts in them. There are always modifications done to suit the orbat. This is what gives them the edge over the neighbours. You always want them to think you have only the basic platform. So a Mustang may not just be a Mustang, neither an F16 be only an F16 or an A4 just a standard A4.
So if Singapore were to buy the F15, it would never be stock standard too.
It could be modified to a point it would kick the hell out of the Rafale and Typhoon. Lets not question the possibilities and capabilities of the after market black boxes.
And just because you do not agree with my views... it does not mean it is dumb. And there is no need for you to tell me that I need to read more about aerodynamics, done enough of that in my life time.
So, like you said, this is a forum where anyone can put forward their views, it does not give you the right to shout anyone down who does not agree with you just because you are a moderator here.
And I never claimed to be a "Wise old sage", those are your words. And frankly, I think you are getting personal to a point of attacking an individual. I would not stoop that low so I still address you as Viper52.
Best regards. -
Cool it fellas.Viper52, perhaps you could give up mentioning the "deceased mare" and let others who may not have arrived from the beginning of this thread to put forward what they have to say or think.No doubt, as moderator, you may feel that there ain't any progress in the discussion.But we are all here to learn more aren't we?Yepp, and Old Bird, no one is saying you are in the wrong.Maybe you can try to refrain from repeating other points raised by fellow posters.I do find your interest in the P-51 Mustang unique as many do not really follow the older fighters , especially those of the WW2 era.Okies then.Let's all continue our sojourn for greater knowledge.
-
Well now, you referred to those who posted as "armchair engineers and Playstation test pilots" and challenged for qualifications, so I gave you mine. Simple as that. You set the tone in the way you've asked for qualifications.Originally posted by Old Bird:Viper52,
You talk I listen.
Yep, you are right. This is a forum where anyone and everyone can talk like a rocket scientist.
Your current job requires you to have a little knowledge of FAA, CAAS etc etc.....
Mind you a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I just asked a question about the qualifications of the people in here .... no need to get your knickers all twisted. You qualified, you qualified, it was my personal opinion only. I hope I am entitled that.
Just because I put forward some of my views on an aircraft other than your favourite it does not mean you can put me down like as though you know everything about aircraft maintenance and aircraft design.
For that matter you don't even know what my profession is.
There is no need for you to comment about what I said about souping up the P51-D Mustang. What I put forward was a scenario. No country keeps their aircraft stock standard, meaning having all OEM parts in them. There are always modifications done to suit the orbat. This is what gives them the edge over the neighbours. You always want them to think you have only the basic platform. So a Mustang may not just be a Mustang, neither an F16 be only an F16 or an A4 just a standard A4.
So if Singapore were to buy the F15, it would never be stock standard too.
It could be modified to a point it would kick the hell out of the Rafale and Typhoon. Lets not question the possibilities and capabilities of the after market black boxes.
And just because you do not agree with my views... it does not mean it is dumb. And there is no need for you to tell me that I need to read more about aerodynamics, done enough of that in my life time.
So, like you said, this is a forum where anyone can put forward their views, it does not give you the right to shout anyone down who does not agree with you just because you are a moderator here.
And I never claimed to be a "Wise old sage", those are your words. And frankly, I think you are getting personal to a point of attacking an individual. I would not stoop that low so I still address you as Viper52.
Best regards.
"Little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Agree 100%. Particularly when one sees things from one point of view while swiftly dismissing others as "gimmicks"
Well of course we would modify the NGF we buy, that is always something the posters here have said. By that same reasoning, us buying Rafales and Typhoons would also see us modifying them. And as discussed, without the export licensing and tech transfer issues the Americans constantly put us under.
Hmmm...what then would you call your scenario of "souping up" the P-51 into something it was totally not designed for?
Shouting everyone down? Oh dear...so I post my views without any kid gloves. Thats shouting down? As for getting personal, giving an opinion about an idea is a different ball game from attacking an individual. -
Good point.
-
LazerLordz, one does not have to start from Page 1 to see some of the same points on the F-15 repeated ad nauseum.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Cool it fellas.Viper52, perhaps you could give up mentioning the "deceased mare" and let others who may not have arrived from the beginning of this thread to put forward what they have to say or think.No doubt, as moderator, you may feel that there ain't any progress in the discussion.But we are all here to learn more aren't we?Yepp, and Old Bird, no one is saying you are in the wrong.Maybe you can try to refrain from repeating other points raised by fellow posters.I do find your interest in the P-51 Mustang unique as many do not really follow the older fighters , especially those of the WW2 era.Okies then.Let's all continue our sojourn for greater knowledge.
And certain posters seem to have a knack for doing that, even though he himself have repeated those points 5 pages back, get rebutted, fall silent and then come back 5 pages later to repeat the same points again. -
are u toking abt yourself or just plain hypocrite?Originally posted by Old Bird:Viper52,
You talk I listen.
Yep, you are right. This is a forum where anyone and everyone can talk like a rocket scientist.
Your current job requires you to have a little knowledge of FAA, CAAS etc etc.....
Mind you a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I just asked a question about the qualifications of the people in here .... no need to get your knickers all twisted. You qualified, you qualified, it was my personal opinion only. I hope I am entitled that.
Just because I put forward some of my views on an aircraft other than your favourite it does not mean you can put me down like as though you know everything about aircraft maintenance and aircraft design.
For that matter you don't even know what my profession is.
There is no need for you to comment about what I said about souping up the P51-D Mustang. What I put forward was a scenario. No country keeps their aircraft stock standard, meaning having all OEM parts in them. There are always modifications done to suit the orbat. This is what gives them the edge over the neighbours. You always want them to think you have only the basic platform. So a Mustang may not just be a Mustang, neither an F16 be only an F16 or an A4 just a standard A4.
So if Singapore were to buy the F15, it would never be stock standard too.
It could be modified to a point it would kick the hell out of the Rafale and Typhoon. Lets not question the possibilities and capabilities of the after market black boxes.
And just because you do not agree with my views... it does not mean it is dumb. And there is no need for you to tell me that I need to read more about aerodynamics, done enough of that in my life time.
So, like you said, this is a forum where anyone can put forward their views, it does not give you the right to shout anyone down who does not agree with you just because you are a moderator here.
And I never claimed to be a "Wise old sage", those are your words. And frankly, I think you are getting personal to a point of attacking an individual. I would not stoop that low so I still address you as Viper52.
Best regards.
look at your previous post...u were practically asking everyone to shutup in that post...so if u want others to entitled u your opinion..1st u must accept other opinion too...its not a one way thing..it goes both way...old bird indeed..EQ dying on you eh?
if u cant take the heat..go somewhere else then... -
Well ....we are arguing in circles............points are out in the previous pgs...
-
True.Well, perhaps I stuck my nose in too far.
-
Back to BVR engagements, the French AF's Mirage 2000-5s trashed all comers from NATO in an BVR engagement exercise a few years back. This with an RDY set which, while impressive, is not as advanced as what is going to be fitted into Rafale F2s. I wouldn't be too sure about the F-15 ruling the roost in BVR.
-
a note to be taken: Americans are no longer a so call dominion industry...the EU and Russian are catching up...don't be surprise in near future China also......
-
Now, would acceleration,high apogee turns and a steep angle of attack combination be one of the factors we need to look into before we select our next aircraft?
-
how about with weapons integrations?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Now, would acceleration,high apogee turns and a steep angle of attack combination be one of the factors we need to look into before we select our next aircraft? -
Yep.That would be interesting.Wonder whether Elbit or Rafael Armaments will get to play with our fighters again?I heard that our EW suite on the Viper Ds may have certain incompatibilities with the rest of the software onboard.How true is this?
-
What? It has a tendency to jam the other systems on the aircraft?Originally posted by LazerLordz:I heard that our EW suite on the Viper Ds may have certain incompatibilities with the rest of the software onboard.How true is this?
I'm not too sure if its true (and even if I knew it was, I wouldn't say it here), but *IF* it is, then it could be one of the potential pitfalls of getting 3rd party upgrades without 1st party support. Which is why I very leery about buying American, and getting Israeli help without American support should they falter in tech transfer. -
I must say that barring the teething problems, it would still make a lethal combination.American hardware with Israeli/Singaporean software upgrade.After all, Israel's own jets are doing quite well.Perhaps all these bugs need a bit of ironing out.
-
did the f-15I shot down any middle east a/c,or engage with migs ,suks???
hopefully our ngf is a rafale