Singapore's Next Generation Fighter
-
Hmm, seems like my take on the role of the F-15T as a deep strike asset is right after all.Much as the Rafale can perform in mid-air, it doesn't have the ability to deliver more ordnance.Originally posted by indigosky:Hello,
I am new here and a Korean national.
Speaking of the ROKAF F-15K case, many people here were deeply disappointed when the government announced it three years ago. Rafale was the more popular choice among the local military enthusiasts then for the same reasons as you do now. It seemed more agile, modern and politically-justifiable, taking account of anti-American sentiment among the young people.
But since then, F-15K has proven itself to be rather a smarter choice due to a currency swing and it is now almost 25 percent cheaper in Korean won than Rafale. In addition, its performance and operational capability promised by Boeing certainly satisfy the ROKAF requirements. They have wanted a big deep-penetration fighter-bomber with air-superiority capability after all, for which Rafale is not. Further, F-15K delivery, logistic build-up and technical transfer are all on schedule. Would the French have provided us the same if the selection was made otherwise? I doubt it because of their internal problems.
I hope the RSAF would make a final decision on NGF best fit to their requirements anyway.
And my one final remark is that the ROKAF has just announced the second batch (40 units) of the future fighter purchase, certainly for F-15K, which will bring the total number of the fighter to 80 in their inventory.
Oh well, let's hope the RSAF buys accordingly to our needs.It's good to be allies. but we must show that we will not be forced to buy something because of what Bush says.It's our needs that dictate such purchases. -
but we must show that we will not be forced to buy something because of what Bush says
For 20 aircrafts ? I don't think so.
BTW, you already please M.Bush with F-16 and promises on the F-35.
If you want a second source of hardware for your Air Force (like the EAU or Greece) what can Bush say or do ? stop the aim-120 deliveries for your F-16 ? well if he starts to play this game, that will demonstrate that a second supplier is most needed
Singapore use USA hardware as well as french hardware for quite a long time now so, I'm quite confident with the MINDEF independance on this contest. (that was not the case in Korea, where the F-15 was the winner since the beginning, no matter what) -
No doubt MINDEF will buy according to Spore's needs.
Oh well, let's hope the RSAF buys accordingly to our needs.It's good to be allies. but we must show that we will not be forced to buy something because of what Bush says.It's our needs that dictate such purchases.
However, the main problem now is going to be cost; that of a Dassault Rafale (excluding cost of new weapons), at around US$68 vs the F-15 Eagle at around US$58.
Granted the life cycle cost may be closer due to lower running cost for the Rafale vs the F-15, it's going to be a tough choice. -
Hmm...that's the dilemma.Originally posted by suntze:No doubt MINDEF will buy according to Spore's needs.
However, the main problem now is going to be cost; that of a Dassault Rafale (excluding cost of new weapons), at around US$68 vs the F-15 Eagle at around US$58.
Granted the life cycle cost may be closer due to lower running cost for the Rafale vs the F-15, it's going to be a tough choice. -
In my opinion, the RSAF should acquire the Boeing F-15T. Although the F-15 has been in service for more than 20 years, it is still a formidable warplane. It has been proven in combat, claiming 36 of the 39 USAF aerial victories in Operation Desert Storm, without a single loss. The F-15E also made its debut at the same time, and proved outstanding in this and other combat actions. The RSAF has operated US aircraft for many years and there should be little problem in the transition, from the point of view of avionics or logistics. Singapore also has good relations with the US and Israel who have vast experience in operating similar aircraft, the F-15E (Strike Eagle) and the F-15I Ra'am (Thunder). The weapons used are also familiar to the RSAF, (M61A1 Vulcan cannon, Mk 82, Mk 83, AGM-65 Maverick, AIM-9 Sidewinders, AIM-120 AMRAAM's, etc...) It would seem the most logical choice.
-
It would seem the most logical choice.
But it also has some disadvantages
- It is very expensive to use and maintain
- The offer lacks some relevant transferts of technology
- its RCS is huge -
It's speculation as you don't know the real RCS of the 2 planes.
- its RCS is huge -
yes, speculations based on the facts that :
- the F-15 is twice bigger
- the F-15 has 2 big vertical tails
- the F-15 uses much less composites
- the first compressor stages are right in the axis of the air intakes.
Those "features" are not particularly low RCS friendly
Don't get me wrong. The F-15 is a superb fighter jet. But, its airframe was designed 35 years ago and at this time, low observability was not a primary feature. -
I accept the RCS of the Rafale is probably less; however, whether that of the Eagle is really huge (relative to the Rafale, that is) is not known to you I guess.
-
What is certain is that Boeing has never advertised the RCS enhancement of the F-15 airframe (although they've done it for the F-18E).
-
Some comparison between F-15E and Rafale:
A. Empty weight:
* F-15E / E+: 16,555 kg / 16,790 kg�iF-110-GE-132 260 Ibs heavier�j
* Rafale: 9,500 kg (Rafale C)
B. Internal Fuel:
* F-15E / E+: 5,920 kg + CFT
* Rafale: 4,600 kg
C. Wing Surface Area:
* F-15E / E+: 56.50 m2
* Rafale: 45.70 m2
D. Comparison of air-combat weight, T/W ratio, and wing-load among these fighters at the "fair" condition (with the same kind and the amount of AAM weapons + roughly equal combat radius):
* F-15E / E+: 7,000 kg fuel (Internal + CFT) + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2
* RAFALE: 4,600 kg internal fuel + MICA EM*4 + MICA IR*2
E. Air-combat weight:
* F-15E: 24,750 kg
* F-15E+: 25,000 kg
* Rafale: 15,000 kg
F. Wing-load (E/C):
* F-15E: 438.8 kg/m2 (Score: 0.76)
* F-15E+: 442.5 kg/m2 (Score: 0.75)
* * Rafale: 328.2 kg/m2 (Score: 1.02)
G. T/W ratio, sea-level(AB thrust / Maximal military thrust):
* F-15E: 1.07/0.65 (F-100-PW-229, nowadays, 29,100 Ib/17,800 Ib *2): Score: 0.88/0.73
* F-15E+: 1.16/0.69 (F-110-GE-132, peace time, 32,000 Ib/19,000 Ib *2): Score: 0.95/0.77
* F-15E+: 1.23/0.69 (F-110-GE-132, the war time, 34,000 Ib/19,000 Ib *2): Score: 1.01/0.77
* RAFA C: 1.02/0.68 (M88-2, nowadays, 16,870 Ib/11,245 Ib *2): Score: 0.84/0.76
* RAFA C: 1.20/0.80 (M88-3, post-2010, 20,250 Ib/13,500 Ib *2): Score: 0.98/0.90
The minimal frontal RCS of the traditional fighters:
F-15E: 10~15m2
Accroding to the declarations of the manufacturers of the NG fighter in the world, the minimal frontal RCS of NG fighters are:
F/A-22: "Marble Size" (about 0.0002~0.0005 m2)
F-35: "Ping-Pung ball size" (about 0.0010~0.0015 m2)
EF-2000: "Better than any fighters today in the world except F/A-22" (0.05~0.1 m2)
MIG-44: 0.1 m2 class
F/A-18E/F: 0.1 m2 class
Rafale: "1/10 of the frontal RCS of MIRAGE-2000" (0.1~0.3 m2) -
seems like tough choice...
But I think what RSAF is looking for is really technological transfer and advanced missle such as the storm shadow. The US has been reluctant on passing us the source codes. And remember, we took a lot of effort to acquire the AIM-120s... So having a french fighter would be good as you know, with money, you can buy all the available ordnance. I place my bet on Rafale. But I would also like to see the F-15 in our inventory. It's a superb fighter and no doubt a good force projector. But I think it's really hard to choose. Rafale is also a good force projector and has sleeker design than the F-15. So let's buy both of them(haha).
Anyway, anyone know how is our AIM-120 compared to the one USAF has. I heard that the US often 'downgrade' certain advanced and sensitive weapon systems for export. Any truth to it?
If it's true, I would go for Rafale. -
I heard saying b4 usually the US will take out some ECM features from their export version AIM-120Originally posted by ah_kwang:Anyway, anyone know how is our AIM-120 compared to the one USAF has. I heard that the US often 'downgrade' certain advanced and sensitive weapon systems for export. Any truth to it?
If it's true, I would go for Rafale. -
Betting Odds :
F15 - S$2.50
Rafale - S$1.45
I personally bet on Rafale! -
This can be of interest:
http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae/gauche/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_8.pdf
Some good info on Rafale. -
Some interesting quotes :
«The Rafale is ideal for the job, stresses one of the two duty pilots.It can climb to 40,000 feet in under two minutes and acceleratevery rapidly to supersonic speed. More significantly, it can super-cruise in dry power, even with four missiles and a belly droptank. Endurance is excellent too, and we can stay airborne upto two hours with one tank.»
Well, it's official now
"At the end of each sortie, the engineers had 30minutes to turn around the fighter, including ten minutes to fill up the tanks. However, the aircraft was usually operational again in 15 minutes"
That's a nice time. However, It would be interesting to compare it with the gripen and the mirage 2000 turnover in the same conditions.Thanks to the RBE2Â’s scalablearchitecture, the upgrade to the active antenna simply involves replacing the tube transmitter and passive electronic scanning antenna witharound 1,000 active modules.
If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time the number of modules of the RBE-2AA is quoted.A secondary aim is to use the technologies developed through the ECO program to pave the way for a higher thrust engine.The possibility of developing an engine developing 90 kN(20,200 lb) of thrust with reheathas been demonstrated.
Such an engine would allow an even faster supercruise speed.
A recent flight evaluation with a foreign Air Force spotlighted the excellent performance of the engine, along with the advantages of its innovative maintenance concept.
I wonder which foreign Air force they are talking about -
A secondary aim is to use the technologies developed through the ECO program to pave the way for a higher thrust engine.The possibility of developing an engine developing 90 kN(20,200 lb) of thrust with reheathas been demonstrated
Both the F-15 and the Eurofighter produces more trust.
The F-15 being slighty more and the Eurofighter almost twice as much. However i believe the F-15 cannot super cruise while the Eurofighter can. -
yes, off course, but the F-15 is twice heavier (20 t class) than the rafale (10 t class)
-
B. Internal Fuel:
Dassault says 4,700 kg
* F-15E / E+: 5,920 kg + CFT
* Rafale: 4,600 kg
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/defense/avions/r_performances.cfm -
That could be due to the different Jet fuel used, u know different Type of Jet fuel got diff Density but the volume is fixed, so, that could lead to different weightOriginally posted by Kovy: -
Jun AFM Top News is
Singapore Drops Eurofighter
More info can be found in the magazine..... -
Both planes..have their pros and cons..
-
That could be due to the different Jet fuel used, u know different Type of Jet fuel got diff Density but the volume is fixed, so, that could lead to different weight
If we consider the max external fuel load of 6800 kg (3 tanks of 2000L + 2 tanks of 1250 L = 8500 L) that gives us a fuel density of 0.8
If we apply that density to the internal tanks we get a volume of 5875 L -
I bet you they will just buy the cheaper ones. Cos the real big spending will be on the F-35s.
-
Any idea if the recent announcement by the US to Israel not to export their technology to Singapore without approval will affect the F15T?
From what I gathered in magazine, the NGF will be integrated with Israeli electronics and missiles.