Singapore's Next Generation Fighter
-
hahaha true that the things are hard to fit in BUT... u need ample space to fit them in and F-15 seems to have a lot of space for upgrades... hahahahaOriginally posted by cavsg:i think u really in fairyland, you have never done any technical work on an aircraft before. its not that simple to put some avionics into an aircraft, does the electrical connectors fit, is the bus system compatible, can the wires cables route thru the a/c, whats the effects of the components on the cg, can the boxes fit into the bays in the a/c. after you managed to put the components in, you need to test, is the avionics working to the desired levels. the antennas need to be redesign or not? lots and lots of issue, the best example if the f-5s project, see how long it took us.
-
Sure, the US can "pressure" Singapore to buy USA, but the pressure will not be as great as what they had given to the Koreans. Singapore transparent procument policies and selection criteria also means that they are less likely to be in the position to put undule pressures on Singapore without Mindef threathens more European purchases. Singapore is in the driver seat - not the US!
Which is why the Singapore market is so important for all taking part.....Singapore has been known to be very strict in selection...meaning only the best in terms of cost and capability is choosen and NOT because of diplomatic pressure or other underhand means......
edit:Forgot to put not hehe -
F-5 upgrade involve coding of the Mission Software for the first time ....... and then you have to integrate the HUD, Helmet with the radar ..... everything on the 1553 databus ...... then you put the whole cockpit into a ground test rig (with a flight simulator to input into the 1553) to trouble shoot and verify function ..... then you fly it and then pilot complain the HUD symbols disappear in the middle of flight ..... then you bring it down but cannot replicate fault in the test rig ......Originally posted by cavsg:i think u really in fairyland, you have never done any technical work on an aircraft before.
its not that simple to put some avionics into an aircraft, does the electrical connectors fit, is the bus system compatible, can the wires cables route thru the a/c, whats the effects of the components on the cg, can the boxes fit into the bays in the a/c.
after you managed to put the components in, you need to test, is the avionics working to the desired levels. the antennas need to be redesign or not? lots and lots of issue, the best example if the f-5s project, see how long it took us.
then maybe radar A-G ranging is not right and you have to re-do the transformation for the HUD etc
Of course when you put in the black boxes you have to consider cooling and routing new air ducts ...... then run tunnel tests on the airflow around it .....
After you lay the cables (for the A-4 it was really tough because the conduit to the cockpit is only 4 to 5 cm dia! So how? Cut another hole in the frame and risk structural integrety .... ) and after all the boxes connected you need to do EMI/EMC testing......
Then you need to put in (more like stick on) all the sensors and data logger to monitor Gs, heat etc for the prototypes ..... where to find the space?
Hey it's not easy! I know! But it's easier the second time around and yes it takes a long long time.
That's why I say go F16-I.
-
forget it, rsaf decided on twin engines due to su-30mkm introduction.Originally posted by Fairyland:That's why I say go F16-I. -
You're quite right...Originally posted by |-|05|:Which is why the Singapore market is so important for all taking part.....Singapore has been known to be very strict in selection...meaning only the best in terms of cost and capability is choosen and because of diplomatic pressure or other underhand means......
Just like Singapore Airlines is a reference customer for Airbus and Boeing, the SAF would be a reference customer to showcase for Dassault, Boeing and the Typhoon consortium. -
Damn I wish I could see those evaluation exercises !Originally posted by cavsg:2 rafale took off from wsap r/w 02 at 0800hrs ltc headed in the direction of bukit timah hill.
-
single rafale took off from wsap at 1920 ltc, r/w 02 and heading for bukit timah hill direction. at the same time, few possible falcons took off from wsat.
-
Saw both aircraft in line astern joining the wsap circuit at around 0815 this morning.Originally posted by cavsg:2 rafale took off from wsap r/w 02 at 0800hrs ltc headed in the direction of bukit timah hill.
Heard a military jet westbound approximately 1925-1930 hrs. -
Location: Air-to-air over Northern England
Title: Typhoon Work-Up
Date: 9 March 2004
Preparations for the full entry of Typhoon into RAF squadron service continue after a number of delays. The first unit to receive the aircraft, No 17 (Reserve) Squadron, based at the BAE SYSTEMS Facility at Warton in Lancashire, will be the aircraft's operational evaluation unit and have responsibility for training the first wave of aircrew for Typhoon. Sergeant Jack Pritchard was fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time to accompany a Typhoon on a flight from Leeming to Warton, and a selection of his images is available here.
Link: http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/limage_typhoon17.html
A bit of trivia: RAF 17 Sqn, equiped then with the Supermarine Spitfire XIV, was based for a short while in Seletar, soon after the Japanese surrender in 1945 -
3 jets took off from wsap at about 1940 ltc, could be f-5s(the engine sound of rafale and tiger almost the same) perhaps its an exercise where falcons attack wif rafale escort and tigers are the enemy.
over at wsat, one fighter took off and e-2c spotted airborne also
wah! big fight coming. -
Low level penetration is passe in todays air combat environment. The focus now is on medium to high level precision strike. Perferably stand-off in excess of 100km from target. The usefulness of a TFR is now moot.Originally posted by Fairyland:I tot LANTIRN has one pod with IR/EO sensor and other a TFR?
Litening is great as replacement for the Atlantic? pod!
Rafale is a smaller package with inferior payload/range even with conformal fuel tank. It's more agile but dogfighting is not the main mission for NGF.
The extra payload/range of the F-15E is the baseline. You cannot upgrade this short of redesigning the whole airframe.
Putting the F-16I avionics into the F-15 is probably the best option IF the US will let us do it.........like the Hawk SAM, you buy some original configuration and we'll sell you some to modify.........
Litening to replace ATLANTIC? Thats like saying the F-15 is a direct replacement of a F-86.
No question about F-15 advantage in load/range, but in today's world of standoff precision strike weapons, is range and payload all that important anymore?
As to your statement "Putting the F-16I avionics into the F-15 is probably the best option IF the US will let us do it", the last part just about says it all doesn't it? You've just ended your own argument
-
Sounds like its night/all-weather capabilities evaluation time! Sure wish I had access to the evaluation reports!Originally posted by cavsg:3 jets took off from wsap at about 1940 ltc, could be f-5s(the engine sound of rafale and tiger almost the same) perhaps its an exercise where falcons attack wif rafale escort and tigers are the enemy.
over at wsat, one fighter took off and e-2c spotted airborne also
wah! big fight coming. -
ok, my source at west side tells me that the fighters have landed
-
Wha! Cavsg and Viper, you guys are well informed! Real time info! Staying near WAST and WASP?
-
simi si wasp and wast?Originally posted by eurofighter:Wha! Cavsg and Viper, you guys are well informed! Real time info! Staying near WAST and WASP?
-
40mins take off to touchdown...relatively quick sortie, wonder who ate who for dinner?Originally posted by cavsg:ok, my source at west side tells me that the fighters have landed
-
wsat, tengahOriginally posted by laurence82:simi si wasp and wast?
wsap, paya lebar
wsss, changi
wssl, seletar
wsag, sembawang
its ICAO code, pilots file flight plans using such codes, we dun use the airport name. -
wah lan eh! rsaf making dassault work very hard man, i remember last time the chinook vs sea stallion battle not so siong one
-
Originally posted by cavsg:
Hmmm...quite different standards required...
[b]wah lan eh! rsaf making dassault work very hard man, i remember last time the chinook vs sea stallion battle not so siong one[b]
-
Bad news about Typhoon, a friend has just told me Chris Pocock (aviation journalist) has told him the that Typhoon MAY not be able to come to Singapore for the evaluation later this year.
-
single rafale airborne again about 2050, seems to be doing circuits now
-
Originally posted by Viper52:
Hmm I respectfully disagree with that...
[b]
Low level penetration is passe in todays air combat environment. The focus now is on medium to high level precision strike. Perferably stand-off in excess of 100km from target. The usefulness of a TFR is now moot.
Droping LGBs or JDAM-like weapons from 15,000 feet is the tactic of choice against impoverished third-world countries who can't afford a credible air force and/or a true medium-range SAM system but what happens if you have to go against a first-rate oponent ? You will have to go LOW to destroy your targets, therefore I think it is wise to get an aircraft that can BOTH release PGM from high altitude AND strike deep below radar coverage if needed. -
If that is true then really they are really jeopardizing their chances.Originally posted by Viper52:Bad news about Typhoon, a friend has just told me Chris Pocock (aviation journalist) has told him the that Typhoon MAY not be able to come to Singapore for the evaluation later this year. -
Originally posted by Viper52:40mins take off to touchdown...relatively quick sortie, wonder who ate who for dinner?
There has been ACM between Rafale F1 and Belgian F-16 MLU in France a few months ago. I do not know the results even though it seems that in BVR the F-16 had a hard time but that's not really hot news that a RBE2 does better than a APG-66(V)2 -
1st day war usually go low to neutralise defense then go high as aa and mpads become bigger risks.Originally posted by Viking1:Hmm I respectfully disagree with that...
Droping LGBs or JDAM-like weapons from 15,000 feet is the tactic of choice against impoverished third-world countries who can't afford a credible air force and/or a true medium-range SAM system but what happens if you have to go against a first-rate oponent ? You will have to go LOW to destroy your targets, therefore I think it is wise to get an aircraft that can BOTH release PGM from high altitude AND strike deep below radar coverage if needed.