Singapore's Next Generation Fighter
-
at high Gs like during a dog fight you can't move efficiently with your arm on the stick in the middle, thaz why high G fighters place the stick where the arm can rest comfortably (like on an armchair) and that only little hand/wrist movement is required to manoeuvre the plane efficiently.Originally posted by cavsg:i prefer the stick to be in the center. imagine in wartime you got hit on the right side and your right hand is injured, how you going to fly with left hand if the stick is not in centre.
incidently the F16's seat is designed to incline like an armchair so that the pilot can still function at extreme G. -
This NGF thing is about finding a replacement for the A4 so that we can have an aircraft for deep strike interdiction.its not about buying an aircraft for technology transfer.anyway the french only say singapore can play a part in the development of the radar,nothing was really said about technology transfer. American aircraft is stil the better choice any day over the french.because if they buy the rafale,they may have to buy another set of missiles and bombs to go with it,obviously not cost-effective.Mindef will be a real big sucker to buy the rafale.the F15 is cheaper and more capable than the rafale.Originally posted by paulho:on principal I agree wif most that the F15 would be the choice fighter but when talking technology transfer the americans make poor partners. Most likely it will be the rafale I think.
recall several years ago there was an article in the papers regarding counter measures, mindef claimed that such things not off the shelf and were hard to come by even from allies such as the americans.
But the french are willing to provide us the know how to build advance radar systems, does it means that with this knowledge we can now build our own version of countermeasures?
The french in this case will be willing to throw into the kitty their own
mothers to seal the deal if it is sweet enough. But based on history they are dirty bastards known to have made arm supply deals to countries like israel, iraq and most recently taiwan then backstab them later on. Any deal with them I feel needs to be really ironclad. -
I AGREE WITH THAT! Keep focus...... tech transfer is just a bonus.Originally posted by kingkhong79:This NGF thing is about finding a replacement for the A4 so that we can have an aircraft for deep strike interdiction.its not about buying an aircraft for technology transfer.anyway the french only say singapore can play a part in the development of the radar,nothing was really said about technology transfer. American aircraft is stil the better choice any day over the french.because if they buy the rafale,they may have to buy another set of missiles and bombs to go with it,obviously not cost-effective.Mindef will be a real big sucker to buy the rafale.the F15 is cheaper and more capable than the rafale.
The ILS costs with Rafale and Typhoon would be horrendous unless someone is suggesting the whole RSAF fleet will swing to Deep Strike Interdiction.........
I PRAY THOSE IN MINDEF IS CLEAR AND SPEND SINGAPORE TAXPAYERS' MONEY VERY wisely.
There's going to be less and less of it around. -
Here we go again.......technology alone don't win war!Originally posted by KamenRider:some interesting findings on F15 from
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-variants.htm
it says
"The US Air Force claims the F-15C is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35/37, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range.
Although the F-15C and Su-27P series are similar in many categories, the Su-27 can outperform the F-15C at both long and short ranges. In long-range encounters, with its superior radar, the Su-27 can launch a missile before the F-15C does, so from a purely kinematic standpoint, the Russian fighters outperform the F-15C in the beyond-visual-range fight. The Su-35 phased array radar is superior to the APG-63 Doppler radar in both detection range and tracking capabilities. A few F-15Cs are equipped with the APG-63(V2) Active Electronic Scanned Array (AESA) radar and Fighter Data Link (FDL).
Additionally, the Su-35 propulsion system increases the aircraftÂ’s maneuverability with thrust vectoring nozzles.
Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost).
The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1. In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed."
of course it was the older version of F15s
This seems to be lost on alot of people. Singapore has been brain washed into thinking technology is a guarantee to the outcome of a conflict.
Mindef has been playing this song for too long......
WHY?
Because we have a Hollywood dream machine that has never fought a war......... -
the stick on the f-16 is fix, not like your joystick on your pc where there is movement, its rigid, that's why it requires little hand/wrist movement. on the other hand becos the thing is rigid, there is tendency to oversteer, u need alot of experience to avoid that. and you can fix it rigid in the middle too, that way not much movement. when the israelis 1st got their f-16 they raised this issue of the stick on the right and cannot be flown by left hand.Originally posted by KamenRider:at high Gs like during a dog fight you can't move efficiently with your arm on the stick in the middle, thaz why high G fighters place the stick where the arm can rest comfortably (like on an armchair) and that only little hand/wrist movement is required to manoeuvre the plane efficiently.
incidently the F16's seat is designed to incline like an armchair so that the pilot can still function at extreme G.
alot of books out there always says the seat recline to give better g tolerance, that is correct but its wrong to say that the falcon was design from the drawing to recline to give better g tolerance, they had to recline the seat becos there was no other way to fit the seat inside that small cockpit, its later after test flights they found the benefits of recline seat on g forces and promoted the idea. -
Yeah, the first time I felt the F-16's flight stick, I was so shocked. THe damned thing refused to budge. I think they use some kinda pressure sensor or something right?
-
yes yes the american equipment is better If they sell us everything including sensitive advance weaponry that's great but tell me what's the use if we only get the knife handle and not together with the blade? Why are we doing all this NGF exercise is because someone in the north has better missles than us thats why & not because we need to do interdiction, for what we need to do interdiction?Originally posted by kingkhong79:This NGF thing is about finding a replacement for the A4 so that we can have an aircraft for deep strike interdiction.its not about buying an aircraft for technology transfer.anyway the french only say singapore can play a part in the development of the radar,nothing was really said about technology transfer. American aircraft is stil the better choice any day over the french.because if they buy the rafale,they may have to buy another set of missiles and bombs to go with it,obviously not cost-effective.Mindef will be a real big sucker to buy the rafale.the F15 is cheaper and more capable than the rafale.
this technology transfer is important to us and the french though clever scoundrels they may be are smart enough to spot this & point us in the right direction towards them.
If we can build a good countermeasure to the 'AA' do you think we need further use of amramms or BVramms?
Of course they will not give it to us on a silver platter, they will make our engineers bang their heads for a few years & earn billions in the process. -
kingkhong79 and Fairyland, I agree with you point that if the NGF is to be looked at purely from the standpoint of a stopgap fighter to keep our edge in a regional sense until the F-35 is ready, then an F-15 would make more sense than the other 2 contenders. But think about it, are things really that simple?
Lets start with things that are going on right now. We have been blindsided by the Yanks on tech transfer issues on many many angles. The point is, Singapore doesn't want to be purely an "end-user" of the military equipment it buys. We want to be able to upgrade it, integrate more weapons on it, other gizmos on it, allow it to operate more seamlessly with the other pieces of hardware in the inventory. How are we going to do that when the Yanks hold us to ransom to that all the time, and more often than not, is subject to the vagaries of whos in the White House. Is that what you want?
Then, lets go crystal ball gazing and look into the future. The F-35 program has its share of problems. Even if it arrives on schedule in 2012, when can we get our first ones? 2015? 2020? 2025? Ever? There is already increasing rumblings that to see the F-35 program through, someone other than the Americans are going to have to stump up the cash. The Yanks have the F-22 and a whole bunch of other projects and by their own admissions, the F-35, while not on the backburner, is not a top priority for defense funds. When a program demands more and more money that simply isn't available, only one thing can happen. If the unhinkable happens and the F-35 is cancelled, we'll be stuck with 2 1970s design to hold the fort. At 2020, our oldest C/D Vipers will be more than 25 years old. A saying about a dead horse springs to my mind.
That is not to say getting the 2 Euro-canards don't have their own downsides. I'm just not advocating blindly going "Go Yankees" here. Look at the big picture. -
Bah! This passage again. Simulations are just that, simulations. Before jumping to conclusions about how good it is, I'd like to know the parameters of the simulation BAe carried out to get its results. Relative positions of both planes to each other, range, weapons and stores loadouts, availablity of AEWACs etc. Lets try a simplistic example, if a simulation stick a lightly loaded F-5 armed with 2 Sidewinders 3 miles behind a fully loaded Typhoon at its 6 o'clock and start the simulation, can one then claim that simulation tests, the F-5s always beat the Typhoon in WVR and hence is a better fighter?Originally posted by KamenRider:some interesting findings on F15 from
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-variants.htm
it says
"The US Air Force claims the F-15C is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35/37, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range. Although the F-15C and Su-27P series are similar in many categories, the Su-27 can outperform the F-15C at both long and short ranges. In long-range encounters, with its superior radar, the Su-27 can launch a missile before the F-15C does, so from a purely kinematic standpoint, the Russian fighters outperform the F-15C in the beyond-visual-range fight. The Su-35 phased array radar is superior to the APG-63 Doppler radar in both detection range and tracking capabilities. A few F-15Cs are equipped with the APG-63(V2) Active Electronic Scanned Array (AESA) radar and Fighter Data Link (FDL). Additionally, the Su-35 propulsion system increases the aircraftÂ’s maneuverability with thrust vectoring nozzles. Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost). The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1. In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed."
of course it was the older version of F15s
As for the Russian wonderweapon R-77, the PLAAF concluded it was a overrated piece of crap at its max range, while the RoCAF found their MICAs worked as advertised at its max lethal range
Until then, I'll keep an open mind about the Typhoon being the wunder aircraft that BAe says it is. -
tat someone in the north doesnt have better missles than us.interdiction is for destroying airfields,radar installations or any keypoints in the north.not sure if the rafale can do tat.dont think they have tried firing any anti-radiation missiles from the plane yet.extensive tests need to be done on the flying characteristics of the plane under different payload configurations.the americans have loads of data on this regarding the F15,in this regard i would say the F15 is fully tested.The rafale is still only a baby,largely untested.Originally posted by paulho:yes yes the american equipment is better If they sell us everything including sensitive advance weaponry that's great but tell me what's the use if we only get the knife handle and not together with the blade? Why are we doing all this NGF exercise is because someone in the north has better missles than us thats why & not because we need to do interdiction, for what we need to do interdiction?
this technology transfer is important to us and the french though clever scoundrels they may be are smart enough to spot this & point us in the right direction towards them.
If we can build a good countermeasure to the 'AA' do you think we need further use of amramms or BVramms?
Of course they will not give it to us on a silver platter, they will make our engineers bang their heads for a few years & earn billions in the process.
i juz want to add tat this tech transfer thing is all whole load of crap. -
We all know the the F-15 can fire anything under the sun, including the proverbial kitchen sink. But what is it going to be worth to us if some politician in Washington decide that Singapore is not "reliable" enough to sell the "kitchen sink"? Exactly nothing. Zip, Zilch. Nada. Zero. Kosong.Originally posted by kingkhong79:tat someone in the north doesnt have better missles than us.interdiction is for destroying airfields,radar installations or any keypoints in the north.not sure if the rafale can do tat.dont think they have tried firing any anti-radiation missiles from the plane yet.extensive tests need to be done on the flying characteristics of the plane under different payload configurations.the americans have loads of data on this regarding the F15,in this regard i would say the F15 is fully tested.The rafale is still only a baby,largely untested.
i juz want to add tat this tech transfer thing is all whole load of crap.
And don't say it hasn't happened before. It has happened before, many times, to many people. And with the Americans, it WILL happen again.
As for your "this tech transfer thing is all whole load of crap", please kindly explain what you mean. If it is indeed "crap", then please explain why so many US-Singapore arms deals are mired in this issue, and some have even been scuppered because of it. -
The F15 is not really a stop gap solution until the F35 arrives.its simply a replacement for the A4.in this regard i would say this Next generation FIGHTER is a misnomer because most probably its going to be used as an ground attack aircraft rather than for air-to-air combat.theres a high chance of the F35 failing to meet its expections,its really a design with too many compromises,a design tat aims to satisfy everybody but ends up satisfying none.i would put my bet on our next air-superiority fighter to be the F22.Originally posted by Viper52:kingkhong79 and Fairyland, I agree with you point that if the NGF is to be looked at purely from the standpoint of a stopgap fighter to keep our edge in a regional sense until the F-35 is ready, then an F-15 would make more sense than the other 2 contenders. But think about it, are things really that simple?
Lets start with things that are going on right now. We have been blindsided by the Yanks on tech transfer issues on many many angles. The point is, Singapore doesn't want to be purely an "end-user" of the military equipment it buys. We want to be able to upgrade it, integrate more weapons on it, other gizmos on it, allow it to operate more seamlessly with the other pieces of hardware in the inventory. How are we going to do that when the Yanks hold us to ransom to that all the time, and more often than not, is subject to the vagaries of whos in the White House. Is that what you want?
Then, lets go crystal ball gazing and look into the future. The F-35 program has its share of problems. Even if it arrives on schedule in 2012, when can we get our first ones? 2015? 2020? 2025? Ever? There is already increasing rumblings that to see the F-35 program through, someone other than the Americans are going to have to stump up the cash. The Yanks have the F-22 and a whole bunch of other projects and by their own admissions, the F-35, while not on the backburner, is not a top priority for defense funds. When a program demands more and more money that simply isn't available, only one thing can happen. If the unhinkable happens and the F-35 is cancelled, we'll be stuck with 2 1970s design to hold the fort. At 2020, our oldest C/D Vipers will be more than 25 years old. A saying about a dead horse springs to my mind.
That is not to say getting the 2 Euro-canards don't have their own downsides. I'm just not advocating blindly going "Go Yankees" here. Look at the big picture.
True singapore wants to be able to upgrade its weapons but in this case the french did not promise any tangible tech transfer.it simply says we can play a part in the development of the advanced radar system they r working on,so even if there is any real tech transfer,we can only upgrade the radar system.so wats the point.[/b] -
the Americans will sell almost anything to us if we can pay for it in cash.the USA is the world's largest exporter of arms.why would they want to refuse to sell weapons to us .i cant really recall any instances when the yanks have refused to sell us anything tat we wanted.maybe u can enlighten mi.and which of our deals have been scuppered because the yanks have refused a tecvh transfer.the tech transfer thing from the french is crap because they never promised us any tech transfer,they juz offered to develop the radar with us only.one small part of the radar.of wat use will tat be to us?Originally posted by Viper52:We all know the the F-15 can fire anything under the sun, including the proverbial kitchen sink. But what is it going to be worth to us if some politician in Washington decide that Singapore is not "reliable" enough to sell the "kitchen sink"? Exactly nothing. Zip, Zilch. Nada. Zero. Kosong.
And don't say it hasn't happened before. It has happened before, many times, to many people. And with the Americans, it WILL happen again.
As for your "this tech transfer thing is all whole load of crap", please kindly explain what you mean. If it is indeed "crap", then please explain why so many US-Singapore arms deals are mired in this issue, and some have even been scuppered because of it. -
F-15E may be the "undisputed" air superiority fighter for the past decade, but it certainly wouldn't be for the next decade. And as much as the americans say that it has a proven kill record, the F-15 hasn't proven itself in combat against any NGF either. Also, the americans are promoting the export version of the F-15E/F to us, and from past history, that probably means degraded avionics/systems as well....
Since RSAF has always upgraded or modified our a/c to suit our needs/tactics/environment, my opinion is that it is best suited to choose the Eurofighter or Rafale. Transfer of technology would be a real sweetener in this case. Sure these a/c may have their teething problems, and they have not proven itself in combat, but they will certainly meet the needs of the Air Force till the JSF arrives (if and when) to replace the F-16.
My vote goes to the Eurofighter, since it is more cost effective compared to Rafale, and has better growth potential for future operational capabilities. -
Actually, the new fighter is not THE replacement for the A-4. F-16s are replacing/have replaced 2 A-4 squadrons, the new fighter will replace one more, while a new LIFT will replace the last one.Originally posted by kingkhong79:The F15 is not really a stop gap solution until the F35 arrives.its simply a replacement for the A4.in this regard i would say this Next generation FIGHTER is a misnomer because most probably its going to be used as an ground attack aircraft rather than for air-to-air combat.theres a high chance of the F35 failing to meet its expections,its really a design with too many compromises,a design tat aims to satisfy everybody but ends up satisfying none.i would put my bet on our next air-superiority fighter to be the F22.
Actually, according to sources like Flight International and Jane's, who more often than not, have well-placed sources for their stories, as well as connected regulars on this board, A/A is a major requirement. While Stand-Off strike is another.
F-22? Sorry, but I think you're a little misguided. Its a) way too expensive and b) the Americans will NEVER sell it. -
I'm afraid, in that first statement, you've shown how much you know. Why would they refuse to sell weapons to us? Which deals scuppered? Heres a short list, I'm sure theres more:Originally posted by kingkhong79:the Americans will sell almost anything to us if we can pay for it in cash.the USA is the world's largest exporter of arms.why would they want to refuse to sell weapons to us .i cant really recall any instances when the yanks have refused to sell us anything tat we wanted.maybe u can enlighten mi.and which of our deals have been scuppered because the yanks have refused a tecvh transfer.the tech transfer thing from the french is crap because they never promised us any tech transfer,they juz offered to develop the radar with us only.one small part of the radar.of wat use will tat be to us?
1970s: In flight refueling capabilty. We wanted it, approached the Yanks. They said no. In the end we had to get Bedek Aviation, a subsidiary of IAI to convert a couple of Herks for the RSAF
1990s. AMRAAMs. A almost decade long wait for them, on the flimsy pretext that the US will not introduce new class of weapons in E Asia, until the PLAAF got their R-77s. And even then, we had to keep the AMRAAMS on Guam till the PLAAF test fired their R-77s.
1990s again. Link 16 tactical datalink. We wanted it, US Navy wanted us to have it. Politicians said no as Singapore wanted tech transfer of source codes to integrate it on other platforms. USN finally won out on the sale, but politicians still wanted to attach strings on tech transfer on the Link 16. In the end, we pulled out and went for an Israeli datalink.
Another little titbit. We've always been using, and are still using 2nd rate Sidewinder AAMs compared to other allies, even in this region. Still think your Yankee friends will sell Singapore F-22s?
As for the French radar, they've offered us to jointly develop the radar.They'd have to transfer a whole bunch of data and information to us pertaining to the radar so we can help them work on it. If that is not tech transfer, what is it? The British and French have offered source codes for the Typhoon and Rafale for weapons integration with other sources. If that is also not tech transfer, what is it?
I'd like to hear what you think "tech transfer" means. I think it's gonna be interesting. -
Thanks for the history but we r now in the year 2004.regarding the inflight refuelling aircraft,we've got the KC135 now from the yanks didnt we?i recall when we first expressed interest in purchasing the Apache from the yanks,they only wanted to offer us the Apache AH64A without the mastmounted radar system but in the end they still sold us the latest Longbow Apache. And did the yanks offered us any tech transfer when we bought the F16?Did the lack of tech transfer affect the effectiveness of the F16 in the RSAF in any way?Did we need any tech transfer of the F16 in order to integrate it into our defence system?Did we need the souce code of the F16 for weapons integration with other sources?The answer to all this is a definite no. yeah the tech transfer will be a nice-to-have but not very crucial in our case.we simply need a capable tried-and-tested battle-proven cost-effective fighter/attack aircraft NOW.The keyword is NOW.That will be the F15 no doubt about tat.The Typhoon and rafale is still undergoing testing and orders to the french and German airforces may not be fulfilled for a number of years yet.this is especially true for the Typhoon.so when will the RSAF get its first aircraft delivery if it chooses the rafale or typhoon?The typhoon and rafale represents the future MAYBE. but the F15 is NOW.Originally posted by Viper52:I'm afraid, in that first statement, you've shown how much you know. Why would they refuse to sell weapons to us? Which deals scuppered? Heres a short list, I'm sure theres more:
1970s: In flight refueling capabilty. We wanted it, approached the Yanks. They said no. In the end we had to get Bedek Aviation, a subsidiary of IAI to convert a couple of Herks for the RSAF
1990s. AMRAAMs. A almost decade long wait for them, on the flimsy pretext that the US will not introduce new class of weapons in E Asia, until the PLAAF got their R-77s. And even then, we had to keep the AMRAAMS on Guam till the PLAAF test fired their R-77s.
1990s again. Link 16 tactical datalink. We wanted it, US Navy wanted us to have it. Politicians said no as Singapore wanted tech transfer of source codes to integrate it on other platforms. USN finally won out on the sale, but politicians still wanted to attach strings on tech transfer on the Link 16. In the end, we pulled out and went for an Israeli datalink.
Another little titbit. We've always been using, and are still using 2nd rate Sidewinder AAMs compared to other allies, even in this region. Still think your Yankee friends will sell Singapore F-22s?
As for the French radar, they've offered us to jointly develop the radar.They'd have to transfer a whole bunch of data and information to us pertaining to the radar so we can help them work on it. If that is not tech transfer, what is it? The British and French have offered source codes for the Typhoon and Rafale for weapons integration with other sources. If that is also not tech transfer, what is it?
I'd like to hear what you think "tech transfer" means. I think it's gonna be interesting.
tats why the RSAF will choose the F15.The Rafale and typhoon are simply the pawns of the RSAF to get a better deal from the yanks.
regarding your last question,My definiton of tech transfer is the same as your.but to mi tech transfer is a pretty vague term because there is always the extent and depth of tech transfer to be considered.providing the source code in my opinion is not very deep or extensive.in any way,i think the only reason the french and british r willing to provide source codes to us is because the rafale and typhoon need lots of troubleshooting in terms of systems integration,sure will help their aircraft industry if singapore can contribute to the troubleshooting exercise of their troubleprone national aircraft.Mindef will have no need for the source code of the F15 because its systems are fully integrated and tested already. -
my opinions are that the biggest concern rite now for rsaf is how the new fighter can deal with the flanker threat around us, nearby we got malaysians and indonesians operating it. further up we have india, vietnam and china. the whole place is full of them. if the recent exercises between f-15c and su-30k is true, the f-15 is at a disadvantage over the flanker.
-
I don't buy the "We need fighter NOW" arguement.
Even if we place the order NOW, it will be years before the RSAF can introduce a new figther type into service. There will be training, detailed contract negotiation and system integration, testing testing and more testing....and then more training..... So we won't be seeing another new figther until many years from now.
By which time the Raf and Typ would have matured. The Typhoon would have been in full service with its many operaters. For Raf it will be in service for quite sometime and might even find some export customers. I am not gunning for the Raf and Typ but I think we should look at the most suitable figther many years later when the figther is in service and for the many many years later of service with its upgrade and so on.
When we look forward into the future, the F15 become less suitable. Why do I say that?
I am not trying to shoot the F15 down. So far no F15 was ever lost in air-to-air combat. I still think that it is the most "natural" progression for the RSAF. It is in use by the USAF which is our pseudo ally and the IAF which are our "dear" friend in terms of upgrade solutions. Also the Korean Air force went for the F15 so is is definitely the front runner in this race. If we are thinking of a "low risk" system integration solution, F15 is the key.
But it cannot disputed that this plane first see service in the 1970s and was originally designed to combat the Mig 25 Foxbat!!! and was replacing the F4 Phantom. Its future potential is really in doubt.
And I don't think the RSAF is in urgent need of a new a/c type NOW. If we take the F16 based in the US and the local based fighter into a fight, we could probably outgun almost all the rest of SEA put together right now! In both numbers and technology.
The F18E and new gen Sukois will need time to be operational. And there will not be enough of them to make a significant differnence.
Look ahead, don't be too short-sighted. -
Viper 52,
I agree on your stand on the tech transfer issue with the US. It's real and can prevent us from upgrading the aircrafts as we go along.
BUT this has not prevented our upgrading of the E2C which is a major success!
Ya the RF aperture maybe needs upgrading!
Also Singapore can do cockpit upgrades too with our own Mission Computer once you finished ruggedising it.
Microwave sensors and the associated signal processing is more challenging. But I thought the French has imparted to us their Masters radar technology and then we went onto the Herakles.......
Singapore given an inherently stable airframe has the expertise to upgrade most of the black boxes. I hazard to say that we may even try to alter it's flight characteristics too. Eg Yaw damper, strakes here and there....etc
All in all I'd say we have proven capabilities in this area. Tech transfer for NGFs should not be an overiding factor in the deal......I'm sure there are other ways to get there.
As for the US President......I thought our relationship with them is multi-faceted. I think we are closer to the Pentagon than the White House or Congress. Change of Presidency will not have that great an impact......not as good as the Israeli lobby but not that bad.
In this area, I think Singapore Foreign Ministry has neglected the most powerful lobby in US -> Free Sex for ALL. We should actively build up strong binding congenital links with them ASAP and all problems with US will be forever gone.
The US have a plan to re-deploy their forces in Asia Pacific and I guess Changi Airbase and Naval base is a big anchor point in their overall scheme of things.
All I care about is Mindef not wasting money away here. Majulah! -
so when you suggest we get a replacement fighter then? since u suggest we have to look ahead?Originally posted by spencer99:I don't buy the "We need fighter NOW" arguement.
Look ahead, don't be too short-sighted. -
indonesians are planning to get up to 48 su and m'sia is getting 18. indonesia already have 2 27 and 2 30, they may not be able to fly large tactical formations now but it would not stop them from teaching pilots now how to fly them. somemore indonesia flies the f-16, their pilots would know the difference and characteristics of both aircraft and used their flankers against our falcons to their advantage.Originally posted by spencer99:And I don't think the RSAF is in urgent need of a new a/c type NOW. If we take the F16 based in the US and the local based fighter into a fight, we could probably outgun almost all the rest of SEA put together right now! In both numbers and technology.
Look ahead, don't be too short-sighted. -
This discussion is getting too interesting for me to sideline and I will add my 2 cents worth...
I see the arguments of both pro and against an F15 selection, personally, I am against RSAF getting the F15. The argument against F15 stack up much higher than the pro F15 argument and I will not be surprised if DSTA finds that so.
The biggest disincentive for F15 is its growth protential and technology transfer which in my eyes is probably one of the highest critial for a successful bid. The reason is simple. Singapore is no longer just a pure consumer of high tech equipment, in this case, fighter jets. It wants to be able to upgrade it, modify it, change it as it see fits and necessary. Singapore needs to be able to integrate weapons from non tradition source (namely from Israel and who knows where else). If we examin carefully the procurement habits by DSTA/Mindef, we can easily spot the trend where Singapore now relies lesser and lesser from the USA, but now shift to other European countries and Israel (Israel is becoming a more important source of high tech stuff than the USA!!!).
Look, if history teaches us anything, it taught us that there are no purchase of high end weapons or platforms from the USA without some sort of condition attached. kingkhong79 cited two examples of which Singapore seemingly got high-end stuff without strings attached, and I can counter argue that. The purchase of KC-135 was not some high end stuff. The KC-135s were effectively stored in the desert for disposal. RSAF cleverly got the frames, upgrade them to the latest -R version and got a greatest bang for the buck. Good bye, but hardly high end/high tech stuff. Given KC-135 were needed to reful the Vipers (the only way since Vipers do not take from drogue refuelling).
As for the Apache purchase, oh, interesting one. RSAF had always wanted Apaches, but the US won't release them and when they do, they won't give Singapore the Longbow radar. Singapore threaten to buy Eurocopter Tiger and that was when an attitude change occurred. Man, I reckon Singapore would have been better off getting Super Cobras or even Tigers.
So what does this have to do with the F-15 selection one might ask.
Well, here are my reasonings:
1. F-15, although fully integrated, uses technologies developed in the mid to late eighties. Singapore F-15T version will no doubt be slightly less capable than the USAF F-15E. Avionics suite might differ. There are no firm guarantee that Singapore will get the AESA radar too although this has been floated as an option.
2. No source code to modify the Eagles. Unless we start adopting Israeli F-15I avionics and relies on Israel to provide us with source code and their technology, I can't see us getting any technological advancement from this purchase. Even when the Israeli purchased their F-15I, they were restricted to field US made radar and mission computers. US forbidded them to replace APG-70 radar even when Israel claimed to have developed a radar with a better SAR resolution.
3. Growth potential fast diminishing. USAF now concentrates on the Raptors program. Why would they upgrade or grow the Eagles more. I can't see ST Aero being too successful in growing the Eagles without significant price to pay, either to the Israeli or Boeing. Boeing is going to be the biggest winner here, not Singapore.
4. The argument about XXX weapons integration with F-15 is very moot. If we can't even get approval to purchase the XXX weapons, why do you think the integration matters. Our Vipers are already so integrated with all different weapons including Slammer-ER and HARM. Why do you think we haven't seen them on our Vipers first. The Euro-carnards win on this point big time!
There are so many counter arguments for a F-15 selection that it is not even funny.
BTW, F15 lights up the radar like a Christmas tree. Its RCS is shocking bad. Rafale wins here in terms of stealth. Rafale's RCS is reportedly better than Super bugs. So go figure. If the argument is that the NGF is going to be used for deep strike interdiction, which one would you choose? Rafale will also win in a silence mode BVR engagement given its relatively low RCS and its ability to use its optronic IR tracker to detect enemy fighters rather revealing itself by its radar emission. Eagles does not have the capability unless US release the SniperXR to Singapore and its another extra pod to sling on its underbelly.
So much for now.... -
You left out INS for the A-4 upgrade. The US govt refuse to sell us laser ring gyros. In the end ST went for a Litton LRG.Originally posted by Viper52:I'm afraid, in that first statement, you've shown how much you know. Why would they refuse to sell weapons to us? Which deals scuppered? Heres a short list, I'm sure theres more:
1970s: In flight refueling capabilty. We wanted it, approached the Yanks. They said no. In the end we had to get Bedek Aviation, a subsidiary of IAI to convert a couple of Herks for the RSAF
1990s. AMRAAMs. A almost decade long wait for them, on the flimsy pretext that the US will not introduce new class of weapons in E Asia, until the PLAAF got their R-77s. And even then, we had to keep the AMRAAMS on Guam till the PLAAF test fired their R-77s.
1990s again. Link 16 tactical datalink. We wanted it, US Navy wanted us to have it. Politicians said no as Singapore wanted tech transfer of source codes to integrate it on other platforms. USN finally won out on the sale, but politicians still wanted to attach strings on tech transfer on the Link 16. In the end, we pulled out and went for an Israeli datalink.
Another little titbit. We've always been using, and are still using 2nd rate Sidewinder AAMs compared to other allies, even in this region. Still think your Yankee friends will sell Singapore F-22s?
snip
There is also the F-5 upgrade IIRC the radar is Italian. -
i agree tat tech transfer will be important if we to be able to upgrade our planes.but do u think we really need to upgrade the plane ourselves if we buy the F15.the israelis and americans will have a lot of upgrade packages developed for the F15.the F15 will remain in service withe USAF for a long time yet because it will be at least another decade before the F22 enters into mass production.on the other hand if we buy the rafale we'll be dependent entirely on the french for upgrades and spares and troubleshooting,wwho knows wat the potential problems wif the rafale are because its not fully tested.Originally posted by Joe Black:This discussion is getting too interesting for me to sideline and I will add my 2 cents worth...
I see the arguments of both pro and against an F15 selection, personally, I am against RSAF getting the F15. The argument against F15 stack up much higher than the pro F15 argument and I will not be surprised if DSTA finds that so.
The biggest disincentive for F15 is its growth protential and technology transfer which in my eyes is probably one of the highest critial for a successful bid. The reason is simple. Singapore is no longer just a pure consumer of high tech equipment, in this case, fighter jets. It wants to be able to upgrade it, modify it, change it as it see fits and necessary. Singapore needs to be able to integrate weapons from non tradition source (namely from Israel and who knows where else). If we examin carefully the procurement habits by DSTA/Mindef, we can easily spot the trend where Singapore now relies lesser and lesser from the USA, but now shift to other European countries and Israel (Israel is becoming a more important source of high tech stuff than the USA!!!).
Look, if history teaches us anything, it taught us that there are no purchase of high end weapons or platforms from the USA without some sort of condition attached. kingkhong79 cited two examples of which Singapore seemingly got high-end stuff without strings attached, and I can counter argue that. The purchase of KC-135 was not some high end stuff. The KC-135s were effectively stored in the desert for disposal. RSAF cleverly got the frames, upgrade them to the latest -R version and got a greatest bang for the buck. Good bye, but hardly high end/high tech stuff. Given KC-135 were needed to reful the Vipers (the only way since Vipers do not take from drogue refuelling).
As for the Apache purchase, oh, interesting one. RSAF had always wanted Apaches, but the US won't release them and when they do, they won't give Singapore the Longbow radar. Singapore threaten to buy Eurocopter Tiger and that was when an attitude change occurred. Man, I reckon Singapore would have been better off getting Super Cobras or even Tigers.
So what does this have to do with the F-15 selection one might ask.
Well, here are my reasonings:
1. F-15, although fully integrated, uses technologies developed in the mid to late eighties. Singapore F-15T version will no doubt be slightly less capable than the USAF F-15E. Avionics suite might differ. There are no firm guarantee that Singapore will get the AESA radar too although this has been floated as an option.
2. No source code to modify the Eagles. Unless we start adopting Israeli F-15I avionics and relies on Israel to provide us with source code and their technology, I can't see us getting any technological advancement from this purchase. Even when the Israeli purchased their F-15I, they were restricted to field US made radar and mission computers. US forbidded them to replace APG-70 radar even when Israel claimed to have developed a radar with a better SAR resolution.
3. Growth potential fast diminishing. USAF now concentrates on the Raptors program. Why would they upgrade or grow the Eagles more. I can't see ST Aero being too successful in growing the Eagles without significant price to pay, either to the Israeli or Boeing. Boeing is going to be the biggest winner here, not Singapore.
4. The argument about XXX weapons integration with F-15 is very moot. If we can't even get approval to purchase the XXX weapons, why do you think the integration matters. Our Vipers are already so integrated with all different weapons including Slammer-ER and HARM. Why do you think we haven't seen them on our Vipers first. The Euro-carnards win on this point big time!
There are so many counter arguments for a F-15 selection that it is not even funny.
BTW, F15 lights up the radar like a Christmas tree. Its RCS is shocking bad. Rafale wins here in terms of stealth. Rafale's RCS is reportedly better than Super bugs. So go figure. If the argument is that the NGF is going to be used for deep strike interdiction, which one would you choose? Rafale will also win in a silence mode BVR engagement given its relatively low RCS and its ability to use its optronic IR tracker to detect enemy fighters rather revealing itself by its radar emission. Eagles does not have the capability unless US release the SniperXR to Singapore and its another extra pod to sling on its underbelly.
So much for now....
As my argument goes,the risk with choosing the F15 is zero.the risk with choosing the rafale or typhoon is huge.like i said before,the Mindef want immediate delivery of their purchase and not apurchase that can be delivered only ten years down the road.tats the reason why the mindef is evaluating the aircrafts NOW because it wants a attack/fighter aircraft NOW.In this case,the Typhoon was never a contender in the first place.The rafale is being used as apawn to get a better deal from the americans juz like the case in the past when we threatened to get the Tiger chopper when the yanks refused to sell their Longbow Apache to us.