Singapore's Next Generation Fighter
-
Of course they can't park on deck during ops. But you put if as if the entire airwing can be parked in the hangar whichOriginally posted by sbst275:That I know, however, pls planes are still parked in the hangar, very planes can park at the deck during operations. You mean planes can park at the take off and landing lane or the elevators when there is operations? I have a friend who knows of the US Naval carriers and how it works and don't call ppl Parrots or what, it's very rude even in forums. Next time, I will just ignore this person....
1) They can't, so a portion of the airwing has to be parked outside where there are no flight ops, and
2) Even if they can, the corrosive and moisture heavy sea air will still affect the aircraft in the hangar.
So, back to your original point, there is no difference between the Rafale operating in the tropics (Singapore) and on carriers. If anything, the carrier is a more demanding environment on an aircraft.
You've a friend of knows of US carriers? Well, I have seen the insides of 3, as a guest of the US Navy. But then I'm not interested in a "My gun is bigger than your gun contest", I'd prefer to discuss facts.
Well, what do you call your repeating of points which have already been rebutted, of which you cannot even do accurately?
Ignore me? Be my guest, I'll continue to rebut what I perceive to be factual errors, from you or anyone else. I'd prefer not to make things personal here. -
Well, according to some poster(s) here, you'd think that the Typhoon and Rafale are good for nothing except looking pretty at airshows. A rather hasty judgement considering these same poster(s) admitted never being close to either one before. And the rest of us are supposed to be "unqualified" and "Playstation Test Pilots"Originally posted by southpark2000:Errrm.....planes do get a lot of stress flying up in the cold frigid thin air above....
Hence, composites or not, they need to be able to withstand variations in temperature, humidity.
Wat's good is a Eurofighter in wet wet wet England?
Ditto for French Rafale? Especially on the carriers?
Dun think all three manufacturers build a multi / swing / omni - role planes that melt in water? 
Composites are indeed poorer than metals in impact, but in terms of strength to weight ratio superior in almost all other mechanical properties, particularly in compression. -
--------- Double post edited --------
-
Nah.... who can debate with you Viper52? You so well read lke scholar.Originally posted by Viper52:Yup, and it often manifests itself in skirting issues, flogging of dead horses and failure to rebut points.
Say, Old Bird, any plans to rebut my rebuttal of your points? You keep bringing up new points that I rebut, but we never seem of have a proper debate after you clam up subsequently over the original point you make.
You are the leading authority on this thread. I not so knowledegable like you.
I just an aircraft mechanic only. I use my hands to work.
The points I bring up are only from what I know and have encountered in the course of my work, just speaking from my limited experience only.
How to debate with aviation engineers like you??
But if you think this thread is too high tech for a lowly mechanic to post then I don't post. I don't know how to rebut or debate with people, I just repair aircraft only. -
Hmmm.....come to think of it, would it be a safer option that RSAF chooses the Rafale M (Marine) and opposed to the C (Air Force) versions (assuming of course its outperforms against the other two NGF contenders)?Originally posted by Viper52:there is no difference between the Rafale operating in the tropics (Singapore) and on carriers. If anything, the carrier is a more demanding environment on an aircraft.
The M is more sturdy, given that it is strengthened for carrier ops. Not sure if it was necessary to navalise the electronics though...
The M is heavier though (560kg more) and has one less hardpoint....and more expensive too compared to the B versions -
Hey Viper,Originally posted by Viper52:Well, according to some poster(s) here, you'd think that the Typhoon and Rafale are good for nothing except looking pretty at airshows. A rather hasty judgement considering these same poster(s) admitted never being close to either one before. And the rest of us are supposed to be "unqualified" and "Playstation Test Pilots"
Composites are indeed poorer than metals in impact, but in terms of strength to weight ratio superior in almost all other mechanical properties, particularly in compression.
I am trying to help make a point (without going through the technicalities of it) that the composites used are not as bad as some forumers here make it out to be.....
Surely Euro-consortium would have choosen composites that are impervious / inert to water given England's wet weather. Same for the Rafale, as the Franch Navy operates them on a floating airbase!!!
Ouch - a case of blue on blue.....
[/b] -
Thanks for looking so highly of me, but I never claimed to be an authority of anything. You said it not me.Originally posted by Old Bird:Nah.... who can debate with you Viper52? You so well read lke scholar.
You are the leading authority on this thread. I not so knowledegable like you.
I just an aircraft mechanic only. I use my hands to work.
The points I bring up are only from what I know and have encountered in the course of my work, just speaking from my limited experience only.
How to debate with aviation engineers like you??
But if you think this thread is too high tech for a lowly mechanic to post then I don't post. I don't know how to rebut or debate with people, I just repair aircraft only.
I come to this forum to listen and offer opinions, everyone is free to speak his mind. But if you want to talk, then you have to be prepared to listen to other and stand by your POV.
Thanks for making so much assumptions about me, but I've never said this thread is too "advanced" for anyone, it was you who started talking qualifications and questioning the right of others to post in the first place. So why put it back on me? -
Originally posted by southpark2000:
Oh no Southpark, my post was not directed at you, rest assured. Not a case of blue on blue, just an obtuse way of agreeing with you.
Hey Viper,
I am trying to help make a point (without going through the technicalities of it) that the composites used are not as bad as some forumers here make it out to be.....
Surely Euro-consortium would have choosen composites that are impervious / inert to water given England's wet weather. Same for the Rafale, as the Franch Navy operates them on a floating airbase!!!
Ouch - a case of blue on blue..... [/b]
Sorry for the misunderstanding!
-
What is POV?
-
Ya, but don't make ill criticism on others like calling a parrot, it will cause many misunderstanding like that famous J.C disputeOriginally posted by Viper52:Thanks for looking so highly of me, but I never claimed to be an authority of anything. You said it not me.
I come to this forum to listen and offer opinions, everyone is free to speak his mind. But if you want to talk, then you have to be prepared to listen to other and stand by your POV.
Thanks for making so much assumptions about me, but I've never said this thread is too "advanced" for anyone, it was you who started talking qualifications and questioning the right of others to post in the first place. So why put it back on me? -
Opps....oh okay.Originally posted by Viper52:Oh no Southpark, my post was not directed at you, rest assured. Not a case of blue on blue, just an obtuse way of agreeing with you.
Sorry for the misunderstanding!
I thot so too but just in case..... LOL
Southpark
The Dude -
I was just rereading some threads and here's some more comments...
1. The restrictions to vision in the Typhoon due to the canards that some posters have refered to, is very very tiny, and not really a problem, as least as far as I could see!.
2. Aircraft AD was still U/S at Akrotiri on the 8th, but may be due back this weekend.
3. Composites are sometimes more resistant to moisture than conventional airframe metals, The Typhoon has been designed to be deployable around the world, including bloody cold to bloody hot weather.
4. The Rafale has a lot less composites than the Typhoon.
5. Composites require new methods of repair, the composites on the typhoon are designed to show damage, and the Structural health monitering system kepps a check on the airframes health( it should report any unusal flexing or bending or nasty popping cracking type noises)
As for Vipers52 comments re capabilities AND asthetics, I have to agree the Rafale looks better, however capabilities are another story!.
Its rather like French Poodles and British Bulldogs, the poodles look nicer, but which one would you like guarding you ;-).
The Typhoon is at a disadvantage because its early in its development, the Rafale is ahead in its development, Its much much better to say 'Rafale can do this now' rather than 'Typhoon will do that (better)in six months'.
The Typhoon has an advantage in the spares and logistics department, there's quite a few novel ways to support your fleet with the Typhoon, having Eurofighter hold some of your spares or only paying for the flight hours are a couple of new concepts.
If Singapore is eventually going to get the JSF, then the Typhoon is quite a good choice, both the UK and Italy will be operating JSF/Typhoon fleets, they will have paid for the intergration and they must feel that both aircraft fulfill a different need/requirement/role.
Thats about all for now, hope the evaluation is going well..
Cheers -
After reading some posts about composites, one could think you wrote about salt or sugar.
They have shurely some disadvantages compared to metals, but in general they are lighter, more resistant against vibrations and especially in the high end sector don't tend to catastrophic breakdowns.
Maintainance wise more critical are shurely the Al/Li parts used in the Typhoon. The Russians had large problems with Al/Li alloys, and they have the most experience with this material. But they are only used for leading edges, so that they are probably not welded, which caused most of the problems.
Further more, composites fatigue at a much lower rate. One possible problem is that components made of composites often occupy more space then comparable parts made of metals.
What I don't know is how delamination can be checked without destruction of the airframe. For corrosion are many methods known, so this maybe a plus for metals. Ultrasound scannings could be a solution, but here I am no expert, maybe someone else knows more.
As nearly noone here seems to like Typhoon, I try to give some arguments in favour of it.
It is supposedly the best fighter for following reasons: Best supersonic acceleration and agility (important for BVR angagements). The only contender beeing able to supercruise. Better radar tracking range compared to Rafale, comparable performance to APG 63. TVC already tested, intended for integration in tranche 3 (improves not only agility, but STOL capabilities, power output, reduces drag,....)
For WVR engagements, Iris-T and ASRAAM are available. The Libelle flight suit is the most modern available.
The man hours are phenomenal low, well below the 9 mh/fh from the contract.
Many weapons from different countries are available for Typhoon, including U.S. weapons already used by the RSAF. It is the only platform armed with the most modern western ARM's, including HARM(USA), ARMIGER(Germany) and ALARM(UK).
There will be three different AShM's available: Kongsberg NSM(Norway/UK), Harpoon(US) and (probably) RBS15Mk3 (Sweden/Germany).
Nearly the same can be said about ALCM's and PGM's.
For the Rafale and the Eagle only one source for weapons and spares is available. (The proposed F-15T has an different weapon's system, so Israel is not for shure a source). U.S. weapons available for export will be integrated in Typhoon. Examples are JDAM and the Paveway series. If the 4 European EF-nations don't get it, than Singapore won't get it, too. Additional, the four EF-partners integrate many different weapons. For example Germany uses the Taurus ALCM, while Italy and UK use the Stormshadow/ScalpEG which can be found on the Rafale, too. -
Good comments , JW!Originally posted by jwcook:I was just rereading some threads and here's some more comments...
1. The restrictions to vision in the Typhoon due to the canards that some posters have refered to, is very very tiny, and not really a problem, as least as far as I could see!.
2. Aircraft AD was still U/S at Akrotiri on the 8th, but may be due back this weekend.
3. Composites are sometimes more resistant to moisture than conventional airframe metals, The Typhoon has been designed to be deployable around the world, including bloody cold to bloody hot weather.
4. The Rafale has a lot less composites than the Typhoon.
5. Composites require new methods of repair, the composites on the typhoon are designed to show damage, and the Structural health monitering system kepps a check on the airframes health( it should report any unusal flexing or bending or nasty popping cracking type noises)
As for Vipers52 comments re capabilities AND asthetics, I have to agree the Rafale looks better, however capabilities are another story!.
Its rather like French Poodles and British Bulldogs, the poodles look nicer, but which one would you like guarding you ;-).
The Typhoon is at a disadvantage because its early in its development, the Rafale is ahead in its development, Its much much better to say 'Rafale can do this now' rather than 'Typhoon will do that (better)in six months'.
The Typhoon has an advantage in the spares and logistics department, there's quite a few novel ways to support your fleet with the Typhoon, having Eurofighter hold some of your spares or only paying for the flight hours are a couple of new concepts.
If Singapore is eventually going to get the JSF, then the Typhoon is quite a good choice, both the UK and Italy will be operating JSF/Typhoon fleets, they will have paid for the intergration and they must feel that both aircraft fulfill a different need/requirement/role.
Thats about all for now, hope the evaluation is going well..
Cheers
Had been following this thread closely, and I have to admit this is getting really interesting. As for your last comments about the integration of Typhoon and JSF, I have to say this could be a very important leverage point for Singapore to factor in on the selection process. -
jwcook: OK Thats fair comment, I can also state I'm not involved in the selection process, and My preference is for the Typhoon (whats your preference?).
personal preference? well, it's not fair for me to comment but i reckon that the EF has good potential altho the EF team needs really iron out some kinks. we had more than a few hiccups over the past few days. nothing serious, but enuff to push back some lauches and scrap others...
There's quite a bit of misinformation here about the Typhoon, the price is one area where several mistakes have been made, its quite funny to see certain things stated as facts that are clearly wrong.
ah... how true... u can therefore understand the frustration that some of us are experiencing. like i said earlier, those who know better can try to correct some of the misinformation, but it is really up to each individual to add value to the discussion. i would not go so far as to challenge other's credibility or qualification; however, i hope to see more sensible postings. Pls do not see this as "u r not allowed to post if u are not qualified or do not have knowledge". What it really means is, "if u have to post, post intelligently" thanks! -
Old Bird: Composites and humidity do not go well together. Water entrapment within the airframe and its subsequent core material delamination or debonding results in structural failures that can happen without impending warnings
my dear old chap, alot of stuff dun go well with moisture... avionics, the power plant, JP, hydraulics, pyrotechnics etc....Hope the assessment team has experts from the structural section to look into this new 'problem' called composites. For that matter, with all the use of these new high tech composites, does Singapore have the capability, facility or the technology to do repairs if needed? Or will the OEM be making tonnes of eurodollars for after sales repairs??
we do have a bunch of guys at structures br looking into the matter.. it's not so much a problem (yet?)... so take heart...All the gimmicks and advanced computer gizmos ain't worth a crap if the airframe that is carrying it cannot even leave the ground because its radar aborbing high tech composite structure is affected by absorbed moisture, which Singapore has plenty of.
seriously, there's little need for such retorical comments. obviously, the EF is able to get off the ground, albeit not always on time. but it's holding itself up quite well.... suffice to say that it is giving the french and the americans a long run for the money...
A case again for "nice to have" versus "need to have". put it this way, the competitions so close, it'll take us a while to work out a recommendation... -
Old Bird: Very little composites used on the F15s.
oh goodness gracious me... gimme a break, old bird. i dun mean to be condescending, but your post is totally unfounded in this context.. first of all, examine what kind of composites are u talking abt here... different materials have different properties... secondly what do F1 cars have to do with the NGF selection? moisture is always a prob in our climate. does not matter if composites are used or not... chances are the avionics and JP are more susceptible than composites...
Plain old metal bird. Plain old problems. Nothing a patch repair or stop drill cannot resolve. No need to mess with hazardous chemicals, vapours or materails.
The fallout that is the byproduct of burning composites are sometimes extremely dangerous when inhaled. Stay far away when expoxy graphite composites are burning, its ashes when inhaled will probably kill you.
Composites are the in thing when it comes to weight savings. The use of composites is very evident in the F1 cars. And look at their brake discs, lightweight carbon fibre. But one knock, and it all goes to pieces. Composites tend to be lightweight, brittle but extremely strong as strong as metal sometimes like kevlar for example.
Most of the time patch repairs are not recommended and normally the damaged part is changed out as one whole piece so as not to compromise the strenght of the entire assembly. Can be quite an expensive affair.
The trouble is composites are relatively new and so it is not fully developed yet. The problem of moisture entrapment has always been the Archilles heel of this new technology. Maybe in a few years time they may come out with a winner. -
Viper52: The RSAF and SIA have had plenty of experience operating aircraft with composite compenents, the S.211, F-16 and even our helicopters use composites in many areas, and SIA's B777s and A340s have no shortage of composites in their makeup as well, so don't put it like it is the first time aerospace composites are being introduced in aircraft based in our country. so its the first time Singapore is looking at aircraft with that much composite components in them, but then its not like our operators and maintainers don't have experience with such materials.
Good point, u could not have put it any better .... thanks Vip!
Lastly, I don't think the assessment team needs us to tell them what to look out for. -
yoh vip, what's up? u sound pretty frustrated here... look guys, it's not like we're here to critique each other.... we can make this better by posting alittle more sensibly and intelligently... cheers man! and enjoy the weekend... goodness knows mine has been significantly shortened...
No worries QNH, just me calling a spade a spade again!
And thanks for taking the words right out of my mouth.
Enjoy your shortened weekend man, I know the feeling -
BRW Tropical weather and carrier climate are different as the planes can be kept underneath the runway
my goodness sbst.... do u have any idea what you're saying? u can't keep anything under the r/w! it is not possible. good grief! -
sbst: I'm not ignorant
You heard of elevators on aircraft carriers? Read up, the planes are parked and maintained underneath lah [quote]
ignorance is when one claims that " the planes can be kept underneath the runway"... and in another post calls the flight deck of a carrier a runway... -
sbst: That I know, however, pls planes are still parked in the hangar, very planes can park at the deck during operations. You mean planes can park at the take off and landing lane or the elevators when there is operations? I have a friend who knows of the US Naval carriers and how it works and don't call ppl Parrots or what, it's very rude even in forums. Next time, I will just ignore this person....
hahaha... dear dear dear.... it is getting harder to understand what you're writing y'know... what do you mean by "however, pls planes are still parked in the hangar, very planes can park at the deck during operations. You mean planes can park at the take off and landing lane or the elevators when there is operations?" lanes on board a carrier? now, that's a first!
ok, so u have a friend who knows of the US Naval carriers and how it works... will it help u if i told u that i know quite a bit ABOUT carriers and have been on board every single one that came a'calling? it's all part of the job.... and what does this have to do with NGF?[/b] -
sbst: don't call ppl Parrots or what, it's very rude even in forums. Next time, I will just ignore this person
u dun want to be called a parrot? neither do i... but then again, u dun see me acting like one do you?
fine ignore those who are trying to help... fine by me.... -
southpark2000 : Errrm.....planes do get a lot of stress flying up in the cold frigid thin air above....
thanks southpark! now we're talking more sense and going somewhere... honestly, i have no idea where some of you guys come up with the other stuff u post... dreadful
Hence, composites or not, they need to be able to withstand variations in temperature, humidity.
Wat's good is a Eurofighter in wet wet wet England?
Ditto for French Rafale? Especially on the carriers?
Dun think all three manufacturers build a multi / swing / omni - role planes that melt in water? -
Viper: Of course they can't park on deck during ops. But you put if as if the entire airwing can be parked in the hangar which
yes it is true that carrier enviornment are harsher.... i seen badly corroded struts, salt grimed panels, blades etc.... absolutely terrible and in need of regular and frequent maintenance...
1) They can't, so a portion of the airwing has to be parked outside where there are no flight ops, and
2) Even if they can, the corrosive and moisture heavy sea air will still affect the aircraft in the hangar.
So, back to your original point, there is no difference between the Rafale operating in the tropics (Singapore) and on carriers. If anything, the carrier is a more demanding environment on an aircraft.
You've a friend of knows of US carriers? Well, I have seen the insides of 3, as a guest of the US Navy. But then I'm not interested in a "My gun is bigger than your gun contest", I'd prefer to discuss facts.
Well, what do you call your repeating of points which have already been rebutted, of which you cannot even do accurately?
Ignore me? Be my guest, I'll continue to rebut what I perceive to be factual errors, from you or anyone else. I'd prefer not to make things personal here.
hmmm, agreed that no one should not make matters personal, but i tend to agree that there is a need to maintain a level of standards and quality in the postings...