Singapore's Next Generation Fighter
-
Viking1, a first rate opponent would have little trouble picking off low flying aircraft with advanced SAM/AAA systems. That was the reason why the USAF was against low-level attacks with F-111s should war break out in central Europe against the Warsaw Pact. The expected loss rate would be prohibitive, and they focused on precision strike from medium attitude, while focusing development on long-range standoff weapons, the results of which were are seeing today.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.
Incidentally, the USAF realised low-level attacks was the way to go for initial surprise strikes against a less-advanced opponents. Like in Libya 1986. That was of course, until the advent of stealth (beyond the context of this discussion) -
Heard similar stories about Mirage 2000/MICA against all kinds of NATO opponents like F-16MLU, F-15Cs, MiG-29s and various other NATO typesOriginally posted by Viking1:
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 -
Sorry but going low does not mean you have to overfly your target. At low altitude, an AASM still has 15km of range (it is rocket-propelled) and a SCALP-EG still has some range too.Originally posted by Viper52:Viking1, a first rate opponent would have little trouble picking off low flying aircraft with advanced SAM/AAA systems. That was the reason why the USAF was against low-level attacks with F-111s should war break out in central Europe against the Warsaw Pact. The expected loss rate would be prohibitive, and they focused on precision strike from medium attitude, while focusing development on long-range standoff weapons, the results of which were are seeing today.
Incidentally, the USAF realised low-level attacks was the way to go for initial surprise strikes against a less-advanced opponents. Like in Libya 1986. That was of course, until the advent of stealth (beyond the context of this discussion)
If your oponent still has an active air force, you will have to go low to bomb your targets unless your strategy is first to anihilate the oponent's airforce. Of course the US will always do that but not all airforces have what it takes to do it. Bottom line is there could very well be operational scenarii for which low-level bombing will be the best option. It would be better if your aicrafts can actually do it don't you think. -
I heard that Belgian MLU usually get the upper hand against M2000C/RDI in BVR but when they go against the dash 5 then it's another story.Originally posted by Viper52:Heard similar stories about Mirage 2000/MICA against all kinds of NATO opponents like F-16MLU, F-15Cs, MiG-29s and various other NATO types -
Hmmm...wouldn't a better alternative be using stand-off weapons (SLAM-ER, Scale/Apache/Storm Shadow, JSOW etc) to neutralise the defenses and enemy counter-air capabilities before going in with more conventional PGMs?Originally posted by cavsg:1st day war usually go low to neutralise defense then go high as aa and mpads become bigger risks.
Going low has a multitude of problems, PGMs (LGBs/EOGBs) effective range is significantly reduced at lower altitudes. Going NOE is almost impossible to guide a LGB. Popping up to drop and guide the bomb exposes the aircraft to defenses. Staying low means you're forced to use retarded unguided bombs -
Given the price of a SCALP or a SLAM-ER, I don't think anybody except maybe the US can actually hope to really cripple the opponent defense network only by using those. You would need thousands of them. I don't think anybody disagrees on the problems with low-level bombing, my point is that you may have to resort to it under certain circumstances so you better have a jet that can do the job.Originally posted by Viper52:Hmmm...wouldn't a better alternative be using stand-off weapons (SLAM-ER, Scale/Apache/Storm Shadow, JSOW etc) to neutralise the defenses and enemy counter-air capabilities before going in with more conventional PGMs?
Going low has a multitude of problems, PGMs (LGBs/EOGBs) effective range is significantly reduced at lower altitudes. Going NOE is almost impossible to guide a LGB. Popping up to drop and guide the bomb exposes the aircraft to defenses. Staying low means you're forced to use retarded unguided bombs -
Yes of course, I agree fully with that, but going low is no longer the best option, and since the context of the discussion was originally about the LANTIRN possessing a TFR while the Litening does not, I was utilising the point to illustrate why lacking a TFR is not so important today.Originally posted by Viking1:Bottom line is there could very well be operational scenarii for which low-level bombing will be the best option. It would be better if your aicrafts can actually do it don't you think.
Cheers! -
Yep, I was meaning to say that the exercises involved the French 2000-5s against the other NATO AFs.Originally posted by Viking1:I heard that Belgian MLU usually get the upper hand against M2000C/RDI in BVR but when they go against the dash 5 then it's another story. -
Yup fair enough... actually I agree with you but I think that there are (at least oneOriginally posted by Viper52:Yes of course, I agree fully with that, but going low is no longer the best option, and since the context of the discussion was originally about the LANTIRN possessing a TFR while the Litening does not, I was utilising the point to illustrate why lacking a TFR is not so important today.
) planes in this competition that are truly multirole and can do both and therefore it's probably a good idea. After all you are going to pay something like 50-60 million "fly-away" for those birds so I think being able to do low-level flying should be included in the "package" -
Can see the pros and cons here. Good thread!
I still say Typhoon is a long ways off. This international programme is not going to be easy to handle and will take too much time.
Let's wait and see.........
If indeed the F-15 does win.......can I then take it that Singapore has bowed to US pressure?
How sure are we that the Rafale package won't come with any conditions attached......the ILS should scare the hell out of anyone I'm sure. -
slam-er has just been sold to RoKAF for its F-15K
-
which of shortlisted aircraft is the most technologically advance? can we buy shadow/scalp EG, BVRAAM and integate 'em into our existing fleets if we have chosen F15?
-
To answer part of your question, i think it's not quite possible to integrate other weapons into the F-15E, provided the one we are being offered is around the same weapons configuration and technology as the USAF's. In my opinion, the F-15E is the most battle-proven among the three but in the competition, other aspects are considered as well, I'm sure somewhere in the thread they explain it but for me, its the Rafale which is the most technologically advanced, though some may disagree...Originally posted by 5.56:which of shortlisted aircraft is the most technologically advance? can we buy shadow/scalp EG, BVRAAM and integate 'em into our existing fleets if we have chosen F15?
p.s. for quite a while, i was rooting for the F-15E... -
very interesting discussion u guys got there, viper and viking.
i'd like to point out tho that low-flying capabilities are pretty much similar between the three NGF contenders...
it is actually very possible to do low on-the-deck flying w/o TFR. the pilot just has to be much more alert and fly with the aid of FLIR input into the HUD or NVGs to help him distinguish ground from sky.
this of course means the pilot has his hands full just flying, and needs a WSO to do everything else, like weapons targeting-- but our interdictor craft will be 2-seaters anyway.
the APG-63(V)3, RBE2 and (most likely) CAPTOR will have TFR modes anyway, so whether the targeting pod includes one is more or less irrelevant. the first two especially will be able to interleave TFR with GMTI/SAR/targeting/whatever, making the podded TFR even less useful.
IMO when going against a reasonably modern AD system like malaysia's going low is still the much safer option. -
On the contrary wd1, while Malaysia does indeed have a modern AD system, its confined to mainly SHORADS and VSHORADS with less emphasis on longer ranged missiles, a more reasonable tactic to deal with it is to blind the most important AD nodes (radars, command networks etc) with standoff weapons, then fly medium to high to stay out of range from the shorter ranged weapons and MANPADS.Originally posted by wd1:IMO when going against a reasonably modern AD system like malaysia's going low is still the much safer option.
That is, IF we're dealing with Malaysia (apologies to all Malaysians for using you as a bogeyman again) -
Concur. Malaysia air defence does posses the very latest JERNAS (Rapier), thus it posses a significant threat to low flying aircrafts.Originally posted by Viper52:On the contrary wd1, while Malaysia does indeed have a modern AD system, its confined to mainly SHORADS and VSHORADS with less emphasis on longer ranged missiles, a more reasonable tactic to deal with it is to blind the most important AD nodes (radars, command networks etc) with standoff weapons, then fly medium to high to stay out of range from the shorter ranged weapons and MANPADS.
That is, IF we're dealing with Malaysia (apologies to all Malaysians for using you as a bogeyman again)
We did discuss about the using UCAV for close support or low level missions. The best thing in the near future for RSAF is to work towards UCAV for more dangerous mission like these. The scale up version of MAV-1 would be a prime candidate that can carry good sensors and small diameter precision bombs. Second options might be to convert the fleet of A4s to UCAV/drones. Wouldn't be bad to have some QA-4SU flying in front of the VIpers to attract SAMs, with the SEAD Vipers mopping up SAM radars and command and control systems. -
Yes, but if Malaysia were to purchase something like the S-300PMU or even S-400 Triumph, the equation becomes quite different. And I'm not even talking about those Su30-MKI that they will get with powerfull BARS radar and the ability to loiter for quite a long time.Originally posted by Viper52:On the contrary wd1, while Malaysia does indeed have a modern AD system, its confined to mainly SHORADS and VSHORADS with less emphasis on longer ranged missiles, a more reasonable tactic to deal with it is to blind the most important AD nodes (radars, command networks etc) with standoff weapons, then fly medium to high to stay out of range from the shorter ranged weapons and MANPADS.
That is, IF we're dealing with Malaysia (apologies to all Malaysians for using you as a bogeyman again)
As for the MANPADS, I think you are a little bit overestimating the theat against a modern fighter plane. A MANPAD works either thanks to its seeker or in optical mode. At night or in foggy weather, optical mode does not work. As for the seeker, it can be jammed and it's not so difficult for modern ECM like Spectra or DASS. At 1,400 km/h of speed, the manpad will have a had time shooting down a Rafale protected by its ECM suite. -
I agree that all 3 contenders can do it, even though for the Typhoon I don't think it's really been tested yet. F-15 and Rafale have the edge here.Originally posted by wd1:very interesting discussion u guys got there, viper and viking.
i'd like to point out tho that low-flying capabilities are pretty much similar between the three NGF contenders...
it is actually very possible to do low on-the-deck flying w/o TFR. the pilot just has to be much more alert and fly with the aid of FLIR input into the HUD or NVGs to help him distinguish ground from sky.
this of course means the pilot has his hands full just flying, and needs a WSO to do everything else, like weapons targeting-- but our interdictor craft will be 2-seaters anyway.
the APG-63(V)3, RBE2 and (most likely) CAPTOR will have TFR modes anyway, so whether the targeting pod includes one is more or less irrelevant. the first two especially will be able to interleave TFR with GMTI/SAR/targeting/whatever, making the podded TFR even less useful.
IMO when going against a reasonably modern AD system like malaysia's going low is still the much safer option. -
It seems that the selection is a two horse race between Rafale and F-15. Given the delays and more delays and not able to represent itself physically to the selectors, the typhoon might already self-destructed in the selection process. if what is posted earlier that they are not able to send a demostration aircraft to spore is true, then it is better for their team to pack their backs early. how can they expect to sell by just empty talk of specifications and a mock-up model? So i am afraid to say that this shortlist is a repeat of the ROKAF selection battle between the french and the yanks.
-
Viking1, the issue is debating which is the best way to deal with Malaysians *current* AD capabilities. As for the Su-30/BARS, I've no full specs, but I'm not figuring their look-down shoot-down capabilities are *that* poor.Originally posted by Viking1:Yes, but if Malaysia were to purchase something like the S-300PMU or even S-400 Triumph, the equation becomes quite different. And I'm not even talking about those Su30-MKI that they will get with powerfull BARS radar and the ability to loiter for quite a long time.
As for the MANPADS, I think you are a little bit overestimating the theat against a modern fighter plane. A MANPAD works either thanks to its seeker or in optical mode. At night or in foggy weather, optical mode does not work. As for the seeker, it can be jammed and it's not so difficult for modern ECM like Spectra or DASS. At 1,400 km/h of speed, the manpad will have a had time shooting down a Rafale protected by its ECM suite.
Granted, MANPADS are of limited use against low-flying fast jets. But as Joe Black says, how about the other SHORADS in the MAF's inventory like JERNAS? -
A direct face-off between the Rafale and F-15 is a definite possibility, and would be interesting which way it will go it transpires. It might be a pointer that the RoKAF evaluation on a purely military standpoint found the Rafale as the better aircraft, but after politics was factored in, the F-15 won out.Originally posted by kanzer:It seems that the selection is a two horse race between Rafale and F-15. Given the delays and more delays and not able to represent itself physically to the selectors, the typhoon might already self-destructed in the selection process. if what is posted earlier that they are not able to send a demostration aircraft to spore is true, then it is better for their team to pack their backs early. how can they expect to sell by just empty talk of specifications and a mock-up model? So i am afraid to say that this shortlist is a repeat of the ROKAF selection battle between the french and the yanks.
Either way, I'm not writing the Typhoon out, although if the news is true, its a definite setback. -
A Su-30 will always have a harder time detecting a low-level flying target that a target that is "head-on".Originally posted by Viper52:Viking1, the issue is debating which is the best way to deal with Malaysians *current* AD capabilities. As for the Su-30/BARS, I've no full specs, but I'm not figuring their look-down shoot-down capabilities are *that* poor.
Granted, MANPADS are of limited use against low-flying fast jets. But as Joe Black says, how about the other SHORADS in the MAF's inventory like JERNAS?
As for Jernas, I agree it's a deterrent against low-level flying even though it would be interesting to know at what range exactly can a Jernas detect a Rafale or a F-15 flying at 50m above the ground. A lot of parameters here... hard to tell but what is sure is that there are always some holes for low-level flying aircrafts if you don't have a couple of E-3. Hell, even countries with E-3 like France or UK, which also happen to have a very dense and multi-layered SAM system (Rapier and Crotale NG) feel the need to purchase decicated gap-fillers like Ericsson GIRAFFE (Which I think Singapore also acquired).
Cheers, -
Problem with AEWs like Hawkeyes and AWACS is that they use a rotating radar, they can at best scan 360 degree in every 6 seconds or more. Phased array like Phalcon and Wedgetails do not have this problem. Anyway, air defense system is foolproof, as evidence in the most recent Iraq war where the Patriot couldn't tell friends from foe and planes from missiles.Originally posted by Viking1:[snip]
.. hard to tell but what is sure is that there are always some holes for low-level flying aircrafts if you don't have a couple of E-3. Hell, even countries with E-3 like France or UK, which also happen to have a very dense and multi-layered SAM system (Rapier and Crotale NG) feel the need to purchase decicated gap-fillers like Ericsson GIRAFFE (Which I think Singapore also acquired).
Cheers,
BTW, there are many version of the GIRAFFE. I think the one used by the Air Defense guys are bought in the 80s. The 90s version are a lot more advanced and have better detection range. Furthermore, I think SADA also has the P-STAR which I presume is used in conjunction with the various Manpads like Igla and Mistral.
Back to the NGF issue....
looks like we all concur that Rafale might have a technical edge over the Eagles. Now, will see if technical edge will prevail over political decision.... (just like I reckon the ADF should have gotten Leo2A6 instead of M1A1) -
just to disgress a bit.....maybe we should also get these M1A1s and store them in rockhampton.....Originally posted by Joe Black:the ADF should have gotten Leo2A6 instead of M1A1) -
just visualise - u're watching a fighter screaming at 0.8 mach 50m from the ground go right past you. ZOOM! u turn ur head and its gone. same goes for the JERNAS battery - it has precious few seconds with the incoming fighter in its field of view. very very difficult to get a lockon at all.
but as viper says, why not stay out of range of the SHORADS altogether by just flying high?
anyway to get back to the topic... i noticed sth. we're looking for a Next Generation Fighter. but the F-15 first flew in 1972, 2 years before the F-16 which flew in 1974. in that sense F-15's a Present or even Previous Generation Fighter! older even than the F-16.
of course we know that F-15T will have new engines, avionics, weapons and all, and is still superior to the Eurocanards in terms of load-carrying ability and range. but still an old design...