DGA to re-sell 8 jets to Singapore.
-
FRENCH PRESS: French Govt Mulls Selling Jets To Singapore
PARIS (Dow Jones)--The French defense procurement agency DGA, about to order 59 Rafale fighter aircraft from Dassault Aviation (12172.FR), is considering re-selling 8 jets to Singapore, La Tribune reports Friday without citing sources.
Singapore is reviewing proposals from several suppliers, including Dassault and Boeing Co. (BA) to acquire combat planes. The proposed indirect agreement would allow Dassault and its partners to develop additional equipment such as a new radar, La Tribune says.
(Taken from Alert 5)
Sounds interesting eh..Have we finally decided on out NGF?Is this verifiable? -
Why would RSAF buy those 8 Rafales from FAF, when RSAF is still reviewing the 3 finalists?
I would think that if RSAF really does buy those 8 Rafales, then its a clear sign that they have decided on Rafale. I seriously doubt they would buy these 8 Rafales & then later announce they have chosen Eurofighter for e.g. Then what are they gonna do with these 8 Rafales? After all, RSAF has already indicated that inventually they are gonna just operate 2 types of fighter jets.
Anyway, it was an unnamed source, so its still rather dubious as to how accurate it is.
-
The sly foxes are up to their tricks ...
it's like saying "Hey I bought too many tickets to eagles rock concert" would you like to take some.
Or they are saying "if you select us we can give you 8 airframes straight away from our stocks, no need to wait 3-4 years for it."
Maybe those frames they sell us at giveaway prices. But it means we confirm them immediately and later on we buy their spares, engines and missles etc ... maybe at higher prices.
merde ..
we should drive a hard bargain and ask for 20 airfames then whittle it down to abt 12. Just nice. -
Nono
we buy 20 jets get 8 free..put it inside the deal! -
As good as the French fighter plane maybe & no matter what benefits they are willing to offer, RSAF would 1st require the French company to earn their trust after the problems with the super pumas. Onces bitten, twice shy.
Personally, I dislike the French but thats my own experiance with them. So I would rather use a Singapore made weapon then a French.
-
doubt its true. some time ago there was also another report of the RAF supplying singapore with some surplus eurofighters they had...until the planes arrive in signapore with rsaf markings, its all rubbish to me.
-
The french is bad in reputation, esp the frigate sale to taiwan, they sell them without weapon on board. After that they frighten of china, even went to the extend of disclosure of all detail to china on th e frigate.Originally posted by John Ching:As good as the French fighter plane maybe & no matter what benefits they are willing to offer, RSAF would 1st require the French company to earn their trust after the problems with the super pumas. Onces bitten, twice shy.
Personally, I dislike the French but thats my own experiance with them. So I would rather use a Singapore made weapon then a French.
Singapore learn from that and make them sign a non-disclosure agreement before we buy our frigates !
If the rafaele is really that good, it will stand on it own and don't need to sweeteners. -
From what I heard, Rafale was considered by a couple other countries too but was never selected. Must be a reason behind that. Personally, I'd rather RSAF buy the Eurofighter. Watever it is, die die should not get F-15.
Yes it has a good track record but its an aging plane. Also, we should not be over reliant on any one country for our hardware. -
Personally, I'd rather RSAF buy the Eurofighter. Watever it is, die die should not get F-15.
X8
Why are we not considering the Su-35, seems to be a very powerful plane. -
RSAF don't buy anything RUSSIAN other then the IGLAS we're using..
SU-35 no doubt is a good plane..
but it has it's shortfalls..
it's speed about 1.6 mach to 1.8..
Re:Eurofighter LOL..the tranches have not been completed..
and u still wanna buy? its a big joke..the price going to go up real soon
use the $$ upgrade to F-16 I and purchase more AIM-120..
wait til F-35 COMEs then we can truly operate 2 kinds of fighter jets! -
After all, those countries that are making these noise now like EF2000 or Rafale may felt that they have less of chance. These are just smearing campaign
-
You see, other than the capability of the plane in which is the citeria for the program, MINDEF is also looking into other aspect such reliable logistics, avenues for long run overseas training and even technological collaboration. It could be that the Russians are not reliable in providing logistical support in the long run, they do not share the level of technology as the other companies are willilng to and definately, they do not provide the type of training Singapore want.Originally posted by AkiraDen:X8
Why are we not considering the Su-35, seems to be a very powerful plane.
I think all six planes were choosen for their capability and their relevence to our need, then the planes were slowly axed after MINDEF consider logistical, training and technological issues. In my opinion as what DSTA had hinted before, MINDEF is considering the last 3 planes primarily on technology and future collaborations. -
I think we are pragmatic people, if the SU-35 and the services are so good that it cant be resisted, we will surely go for it.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:RSAF don't buy anything RUSSIAN other then the IGLAS we're using..
1) Mini-Awac Suit > Why would we need it where we have our E-2C and we are going LALEE?
2) Trust-vectoring > Why would we need it when HMS with the turning of the head can defeat the most agile fighter?
3) Russian weaponary > Post cold war European weapons are catching up if not, comparable to both the Americans and the Russians. The Americans are unwilling to share some goodies with us, the Russian products are unproven and on top of that, logistics might be a problem not now but in the future.
4) Russian Training > I would not want to risk my life in a russian airbase (oh you got to look at some of their quality now) if they will to organise training there, but i doubt.
5) I would rule out this point > Malaysia bought 18 SU-30MKM with followup options available. You should know that after the F-5E era, we do buy the same type of aircraft anymore. Singapore was about to buy F-18s at a point of time, somehow perhaps due to that reason (not mainly) that we choose to take more F-16C/D.
6) We need a final three to face the waiting companies. How can we resist 1) Rafale with all the technological goodies, 2) Typhoon also with all the technological goodies (not as much as rafale) but the package is certainly as advanced, 3) F-15Ts with it's goodies (not as much as the rafale and the Typhoon but still attractive) but ensure cost saving training in the US cum continuity of logistics.
Although the SU-35 is good but not as attractive. Should we still keep it? -
If the RSAF had intended to upgrade the F-16s, they would've shortlisted the F-16E/F which btw never made it to the top 3. While it is still one of the best jets in the world, it is nevertheless not a multirole or omnirole jet which appears to be what RSAF is looking for.
-
Yes the F-16E/F is a good aircraft, however it is inadequate to deal with future regional air threats. We need an aircraft which is much capable than the F-16E/F but because of our cost saving policy, NGF still have to be multirole. However that is not a problem because the global figther design trend is shifting towards producing multiple role fighters rather than being specific. Unlike the past where multiple role fighters are jack of all trade, master of none, current multiple role fighters can rule the sky.Originally posted by esesce:If the RSAF had intended to upgrade the F-16s, they would've shortlisted the F-16E/F which btw never made it to the top 3. While it is still one of the best jets in the world, it is nevertheless not a multirole or omnirole jet which appears to be what RSAF is looking for.
I think the SU-30MK(?) should be a benchmark for us. Our NGF must be able to deal with the SU-30 in air to air combat and exceed it in air to ground capabilities. If not, i dont think our purchase is worthwhile. -
They are looking for striking capabilitiesOriginally posted by esesce:If the RSAF had intended to upgrade the F-16s, they would've shortlisted the F-16E/F which btw never made it to the top 3. While it is still one of the best jets in the world, it is nevertheless not a multirole or omnirole jet which appears to be what RSAF is looking for. -
Russians are good for anti-air. Why? They realised that US is adept at using Air power to overwhelm the opposition before sending in their land troopies, so they have more advanced land-air systems than the US.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:RSAF don't buy anything RUSSIAN other then the IGLAS we're using..
SU-35 no doubt is a good plane..
but it has it's shortfalls..
Think the Israel wars and the weapons associated with each and every war
-
Sorry my friend, you mean striking capabilities or strike capabilities?Originally posted by sbst275:They are looking for striking capabilities
If it is strike capabilities, I will beg to differ. They do not only go for mud movers.
Even the Australians are worried about the growing capabilities of the region's air forces. Technology to technology, our F-16C/D is at great disadvantage if compare with the SU-30MKM/MKI/MKK(?). I do not see that our NGF have to completely fill up the strike gap by the A-4SU, our F-16D can do the job pretty well. What we really need is a air-superiority fighter which we do not have and as i had mentioned about the cost saving policy, the fighter must also come with good mudmoving capability.
Take a look at the 3 contenders, 1) EuroTyphoon, 2) F-15T, 3) Rafale F3(?), i do see a strong airsuperiority blood in them, as well as superb mudmoving capability. Dont you? -
This offer of 8 jets remind me of the 4x F16A and 4x F16B that we initially bought from the US way back in the 80s.
-
Mights well beg U.S.A to sell us F-22 which has the finest air superiority..Originally posted by foxtrout8:Sorry my friend, you mean striking capabilities or strike capabilities?
If it is strike capabilities, I will beg to differ. They do not only go for mud movers.
Even the Australians are worried about the growing capabilities of the region's air forces. Technology to technology, our F-16C/D is at great disadvantage if compare with the SU-30MKM/MKI/MKK(?). I do not see that our NGF have to completely fill up the strike gap by the A-4SU, our F-16D can do the job pretty well. What we really need is a air-superiority fighter which we do not have and as i had mentioned about the cost saving policy, the fighter must also come with good mudmoving capability.
Take a look at the 3 contenders, 1) EuroTyphoon, 2) F-15T, 3) Rafale F3(?), i do see a strong airsuperiority blood in them, as well as superb mudmoving capability. Dont you? -
StrikeOriginally posted by foxtrout8:Sorry my friend, you mean striking capabilities or strike capabilities?
If it is strike capabilities, I will beg to differ. They do not only go for mud movers.
Even the Australians are worried about the growing capabilities of the region's air forces. Technology to technology, our F-16C/D is at great disadvantage if compare with the SU-30MKM/MKI/MKK(?). I do not see that our NGF have to completely fill up the strike gap by the A-4SU, our F-16D can do the job pretty well. What we really need is a air-superiority fighter which we do not have and as i had mentioned about the cost saving policy, the fighter must also come with good mudmoving capability.
Take a look at the 3 contenders, 1) EuroTyphoon, 2) F-15T, 3) Rafale F3(?), i do see a strong airsuperiority blood in them, as well as superb mudmoving capability. Dont you?
A4-SU is a fighter bomber that can carry AGM-65 and AIM-9. Cluster bombs as well.
SU-30 though good, is at a disadvantage over its design. It is very sort of flimsy at the front. Neither do I prefer Russian planes due to their history.
F-15 has never been shot down any once on any war. No planes that went to war before other than the F-14 and F-15 been shot down before. -
Nah, they are not just merely looking for strike aircraft. As i say, there is no way our F-16 by technology (ceteris paribus) can have advantage over the SU-30MK(/) thus im not convince that they are just merely going for strike. While the Australians in this region is frantic about losing gradually their air superiority position, i bet Singapore is worry too.Originally posted by sbst275:Strike
A4-SU is a fighter bomber that can carry AGM-65 and AIM-9. Cluster bombs as well.
In fact, the Typhoon and the F-15T with the AESA are primarily designed for air superiority roles with of course good strike capability. -
Australia is only worried about..indonesia and judging from their poor human rights record..
USA stopped selling indonesia spare parts..
looking towards russia and such a small no. of SU-30(s)
+ aging gunboats..
haiz feel sorry for them ya.. -
The Mig 29 is a formidable plane.
Sad to say, we don't have anything against it.
Tha only thing we can bet on is,
Better trained pilots,
or
Their pilots and ground crew having trouble learning Russian.
Don't bet on Hawkeye, their RAM jet missiles can take it out pretty fast. -
The Mig 29 is a formidable plane.
F-16C is for visual pleasure isit?
Sad to say, we don't have anything against it.Don't bet on Hawkeye, their RAM jet missiles can take it out pretty fast.
Where in the world they have Ramjet missiles?