Singapore At War

last SG · 2000-04-06T04:56:00+00:00

I am newbie, but if I am a president of one country, let's say : Indonesia. And I want to invade SG (let's hope not)... you know ... what is the weakness of...

Joe Black SG

Originally posted by CenturionMBT:
Central Asia

Russia shoots to rule Asian skies
By John Helmer

MOSCOW - Singapore defense officials have told Russia's arms export agency Rosoboronexport that they expect the Sukhoi Su-30 fighter-bomber will make it to the short list of three aircraft to be considered in the current tender to replace the Singapore Air Force's aging fleet of US-made A-4 Skyhawks.

waddya think?[/b][/b]

Well, the Russians can hope and I do wish them good luck, but I just can't see RSAF getting Russian made planes. ST Aero is not big enuff to start making license copy SU-30. Unlike the South Korean, Japanese and Taiwanese who have pretty decent size aerospace companies to license build fighter aircraft, Singapore cannot risk buying into an fighter type with questionable and inconsistent spare parts supply as shown by the Russians till now. Just look at the air forces of the Indian and the Malaysians, I think we need to learn from their experience and not get entice by the seemingly cheap fighters and end up with big headaches.

Personally, I think the Super bugs will be the most cost effective, but Rafales represent the best value for money in terms of the technology edge they will provide to their user. The only down side of Rafales are that RSAF may have to yet purchase another French missile (ie. Mica). If only Dassault will integrate AMRAAMs and AIM-9X onto the Rafales....

Shotgun SG

NATO munitions are NOT compatible with Su-30s, Period.
We should be getting aircraft that are relatively small, yet advanced. Long legs, room for potential development as well as compatibility. And of course, potential to use (PROVEN) PGMs, and in future Stand off munitions. So far, I've yet to see a single NATO weapon that can be armed on a Russian fighter, and vice versa. And no PGM is as proven as the US-GBUs. The SU-30 is a HUGE plane, in terms of RCS as well as total size. Would take up a bit too much space.

My Guess,
1. EF2000
2. Rafale
3. F-18/E

Orcishwarrior SG

I believe F-18 might not make it to the top 3 finalist.Surely the mindef simply dun wish to acquire the some machine which is the same as the Malaysian government,since the malaysian got the planes earlier they know the systems specification and technical aspect clearer than us.It can be a disadvantage to us besides F-18E/F is not a new planes by boeing. Rolling Eyes
Can the US provide a better package compare to the europe counterpart.
Even the russian give us a better package to the US

bigballs11 SG

Aiyak, I suggest we just buy the J7MG (China cheap copies of the Mig-21), at USD8 million/piece package, we can get at least a few hundred pieces of such hardware and hire cheap "foreign talent" to operate them, swamping the skies of the unlucky ones and struck them like bee hives Shocked

Joe Black SG

A lot of people are mistaken than F-18E/F are just another upgrade of the old bugs. The Super bugs are in fact nothing like the old bugs except for the front fuselage. The wings are new, the leading edge extension are new, the intake are new, the avionics (with the AESA radar) will be new. The size of the Superbug is almost identifcal with the F15. The F404 engines will be an uprated version. The RCS will be much smaller than the bugs. US Navy even consider to expand the Super bugs to take over many roles current filled by different types such as the Tomcats, S-2s, EA-6Bs, etc.

Given a good package inclusive of AIM-9X, Amaraac AIM120C, IR guided munitions, SLAM, air-launched Harpoons, AGM-142, etc, I can't see why Super bugs won't be a good fit till RSAF get F-35s.

Superbugs will beat the old bugs and given right condition (BVR) will be able to down SU30s too.

Orcishwarrior SG

This US weaponary u mention is too good to be true......US will never allow most of these weapon to be exported to SEA region.If if they allow it,it wil be kept in storage in the US.If that is the case y are we buying them costing us multi-million US dollar for something we cannot take along with us......
Y should we get F-18 with a unattractive package

Orcishwarrior SG

Dun be silly as to think of the chinese plane.They are planes that MIndef dun even bother off…

YourFather SG

"A lot of people are mistaken than F-18E/F are just another upgrade of the old bugs. The Super bugs are in fact nothing like the old bugs except for the front fuselage. The wings are new, the leading edge extension are new, the intake are new, the avionics (with the AESA radar) will be new. The size of the Superbug is almost identifcal with the F15. The F404 engines will be an uprated version. The RCS will be much smaller than the bugs. US Navy even consider to expand the Super bugs to take over many roles current filled by different types such as the Tomcats, S-2s, EA-6Bs, etc. "

One of the very few things going for the F-18E/F is its avionics. The APG-79 is a probably the best radar among all the contenders, and the IDECM suite will most likely be as good as the DASS and Spectra suite. However, the fighter's aerodynamic performance sucks. It's the worst among all the contenders, and I'm sure you won't argue with me on that. eg. The wing-drop problem has, till today, only been ameliorated, but not totally solved. Its acceleration is worse than the F-18C, and that plane's acceleration is already crappy enuff. The F414 pumps out more thrust than the F404, but the increase in thrust wont be able to compensate for the increase in the plane's weight. And stealth for the SuperHornet is a non-issue. Carry any meaningful war-load, and say bye bye to any low-orbservable attempts in that plane's design.
One thing I like about the Superbug, however, is the F-18F twin-seater's decoupled cockpit concept. Enabled by the AESA radar, this feature allows maximum utilisation of the radar's ability to interleave A2A and A2G radar modes. Thus the pilot can use the radar's A2A modes for situational awareness, while the WSO can simultaneously use the radar's A2G modes for the fighter's attack mission, allowing both to concentrate on their tasks. With a two seater cockpit, which has always proven to be essential for the attack role, this feature would make the F-18F Superhornet a very potent attack fighter, making it surpass the Rafale, Typhoon, and perhaps even the F-16 Block 60 in the A2G role.

"Given a good package inclusive of AIM-9X, Amaraac AIM120C, IR guided munitions, SLAM, air-launched Harpoons, AGM-142, etc, I can't see why Super bugs won't be a good fit till RSAF get F-35s. "

If you are talking of a good package, look at the Typhoon. No plane has as many weapons integrated on it than that plane. Virtually the whole A2A and A2G arsenal would be integrated on it!

"Superbugs will beat the old bugs and given right condition (BVR) will be able to down SU30s too."

Yes, it'll beat the old bugs (otherwise why get a new bug?) but by a very small margin, as reported by GAO on May 2000. That it'll be able to down SU-30s is not in doubt, due to its more advanced avionics.

Orcishwarrior SG

Yes that is agreeable,in an air combat Su-30 is surely a russian 3rd generation fighter jet that u dun really want to reckon with. Laughing
With more advanced russian avionics
most significant of all the R-77 amraamski R-73 consider one of the most deadly dogfight missiles in russian missiles inventories

YourFather SG

??? The R-77, at least the first gen ones, are not really that much to be afraid of. The Slammers are better missiles than them. What’s to be taken more seriously are the R-73s….

Shotgun SG

Actually, the R-77s have a range advantage over the AIM120s. A good 40km advantage. Only thing is, R-77s sold are export versions, which may be less capable. Another thing, AIM-9X has yet to be put into active service, and so far not much is known about it and its real capabilities. (Not publicly) SU-30s are good, esp if you enjoy HUGE fuel slurping mofos, that require lots of service and maintenance on the ground as parts may not be available when needed. Personally, I will rule out the F-18E/F cos I doubt we will recieve the full weapons package from the US. Block 60 Vipers are probably out too, as the USAF is not gonna buy any of them at all. Thus the block 60 Vipers will be another one of those Export Upgrade Versions.

The Typhoon and the Rafale are what I feel the most likely. They are relatively new and advanced multi-role/dual-role/ F/As or whatever u want to call them. They have a huge array of A2A and A2G arsenal at their disposal. Their manufacturers won't have any qualms selling its weaponry to us. And at the same time, they are much easier to integrate than the Russian competitors.

The Superbugs can still be an option, IF the US is willing to sell us a relatively good package.

Thats my 2 cts.

YourFather SG

Just a side note on the Typhoon:
"Wind tunnel tests indicate that adding two 1500-litre conformal fuel tanks to the top of the Eurofighter Typhoon would extend the range by 25 percent without seriously hampering aerodynamic performance. This is seen as critical to reaching some markets (e.g., Australia) and to fully utilizing the Tranche-3 deep strike capability as it would free up two of the weapons stations (which are now used for external fuel tanks)"

If tunnel tests are true, Tranche-3 should solve the range problem faced by the Typhoon in the current config.

Back to the R-77. Range is not everything, and furthermore, the range provided is the 'claimed' range of the missile. We do not know the parameters under which that range specification was derived, and it doesn't really matter. What's more important is the missile's effective range, of which the Amraam, with its more advanced software, has. The basic R-77 solid-burn profile limited the missile's engagement performance by bleeding off too much energy too fast. (software enhancements can do much to conserve energy. The Python 4 reportedly has excellent software which allows it to retain much of its energy by calculating the most energy efficient woute to the target) It also didn't have a lofted flight engagement trajectory like the Amraam. Its also good to know that the C5 version of the Amraam has a larger motor, and with the clipped wings of the C versions, drag will probably decrease, leading to even larger 'no-escape' zones for the missile.

Joe Black SG

True, but will EADS ever develop Typhoon to Tranche-3 given the present and future fighter aircraft? I can't see there will be a lot more to add to the current 650 on the order books to make the development viable for EADS. The British and Germans will eventually upgrade their respective Typhoons to suit their own needs just like what they did to the Tornadoes.

History showed us that a multi-nation program like this of Typhoon will never work well. Just look at the Jaguars, Tornadoes, Harries, etc.

Furthermore, it makes sense to get the Typhoons if RSAF want to get a new breed of air-superiority 4th gen fighter, but if RSAF want a deep penetration strikes aircraft, the Rafale, Super Bugs will have to rank ahead of Typhoon.

I like Typhoon, but I think it is too optimised for air to air combat at its current configuration. Rafale is the only true 4th gen multi-role aircraft. I think it will do much better with its electronically scanned phased array radar. It will prove to be a much better deep strike penetration aircraft for the RSAF (again provided the French are willing to integrate all the current NATO (US-made) LGBs and guided munition in the RSAF inventory.

YourFather SG

"True, but will EADS ever develop Typhoon to Tranche-3 given the present and future fighter aircraft? I can't see there will be a lot more to add to the current 650 on the order books to make the development viable for EADS. The British and Germans will eventually upgrade their respective Typhoons to suit their own needs just like what they did to the Tornadoes."

No. They will develop the Tranche 3 in concert, but like what you said, it will probably be upgrades of the Tranche 2 aircraft that they have in the inventory at that time, and not new build aircraft. (or at least a much decreased number)

"History showed us that a multi-nation program like this of Typhoon will never work well. Just look at the Jaguars, Tornadoes, Harries, etc. "

Never work well? In what sense? Its true that the Germans did delay the program significantly, but the Rafale has also been significantly delayed too. The current Typhoon doesn''t seem to 'not work well' to me.

"Furthermore, it makes sense to get the Typhoons if RSAF want to get a new breed of air-superiority 4th gen fighter, but if RSAF want a deep penetration strikes aircraft, the Rafale, Super Bugs will have to rank ahead of Typhoon. "

True, as I said above, the SHornet F version is most probably a better strike fighter than the Typhoon, due to its 2 seater & decoupled cockpit. But I think there's a 2 seater Typhoon design, is there? (I cannot confirm, and have not checked, so dont bite me on this point, ok? Smile ?

YourFather SG

i forgot something. Remember last time we discussed what model of the SH-60 was offered to Singapore? We assumed that it would be 1 of the new models for the USN, the SH-60R or S version. But it seems that the version offered us is based on the one offered to Greece, and looks very different to the ones for the USN. I dont know if you have seen it before, but go to this page:

http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/00sing2/airfrm02.htm

Viper52 SG

Once again, the problem with the Typhoon is not even whether Tranche 3 will solve the problems of the Typhoon(too geared towards A2A, insufficient range/combat radius). It is as Joe Black has pointed out, whether it will reach that stage or not. Looking at previous multinational designs, its unlikely, everyone will get the Typhoons ordered, the countries involved will hail it as a fantastic example of multinational cooperation, then promptly each go their own way as to customising the aircraft for their own need, each heaving a sigh of relief at the sight of each others backs.

Also, development time comes into play, as I've often said before, I am impressed(very much so) by the Typhoons specs, but I've also said we must put things into perspective and realise that much of the claimed specs are just that, claims, very little exists beyond the papers and the harddrives of the consortiums offices. The basic fact is that the program is lagging, and severely so, compared to equivalent fighters of the same generation. 4 Typhoons, 3 from UK and 1 German, flew together for the 1st time recently at Farnborough. Some see it as an achievement. I say, "about damn time"

Back to integration. US has already told RoK no AMRAAM integration if it chooses non-US equipment. No doubt, they will use the same arm-twisting tactics on other nations, us included when it comes to picking our fighters. As I've asked before, what then for the non-US contenders? Skyflash/Sparrow for Typhoon until Meteor is available at the end of the decade(and that if and only if the damn Krauts stop trying to screw around with the program). Hardly cutting edge is it?

I've said this before and I'll say it again. While the Typhoon is a very impressive aircraft with a very impressive set of specs, there are too many what-ifs concerned with the state and schedule to the program for us to gamble our new fighter program on.

AAM ranges

The common mistake is to look at range of AAMs. What range. AMRAAM can fly what, 60 km? Sure, but does Raytheon tell you at that admittedly impressive number, what is the hit probability for AMRAAM against a hard manoevring target. Almost zero. Yes thats right. Almost zero. Whats the point of flying that far if you're not going to do what you're designed for? Ditto for the R-73/R-77. Impressive stats, but again, what hit probability at the extreme ranges?

Compare this, for stats of hit probability of AMRAAM vs MICA:

the AMraam AIM120 C is rated at Max range "till the propulser is off", Mica is rated at 100% 9G agile detroyed target range. AIM120 C can't destroy a agile target after 30kms,"look that the dutch who destroyed a Mig to kosovo launched 3 AIM120 for only one touchdown" near Meteor will keep final extreme agility to more than 100kms that will be the first ever deadly BVR missile "on the paper", Rafale will get Mica for Short/medium and Meteor for BVR.

I know which combi I'd rather have....

If we buy non US and they don't integrate AMRAAM, then fine by all means. Screw them, we can always integrate Derby/Python onto any Rafale until we get Meteors. We can do without US made second rate souped up 1970s airframes and capable but overrated missiles one generation behind cutting edge anyway...

I think its about time buyers of Western weapons had a paradigm shift and realise that other Western options are just as capable if not even more than American equivalents, and sans the crippling export restrictions the Americans ALWAYS place on their exports to boot. Time for someone to wake the Yanks up and make them smell the f***ing roses...

Viper52 SG

Cool, I believe some USN SH-60s have the nose mounting containing the FLIR/LLTV as well. Whats this version called?

Joe Black SG

The FLIR on the nose look a little too flipsy for my liking. Wonder what kinda stress fracture if they mount the FLIR as per the model (Viper, maybe you can enlightening some of us here - do you do structure integrity/stress fracture in your course?).

BTW, does anyone know what happen to the "small number" of naval chopper RSN is supposed to be ordering now? I haven't heard anything. The last article I read about it said that a decision is due in either June/July. I haven't seen anything remotely mentioned about a selection yet. I hope either the NH90 or the Seahawks will be chosen.

YourFather SG

"Skyflash/Sparrow for Typhoon until Meteor is available at the end of the decade"

Laughing I thought we've gone thru this B4?! They cannot deny us integration of the AMRAAM on the Typhoon, as its already integrated on the plane! we're not the only ones using that plane. Germany,UK, they use it too, and the AMRAAM is their principal AAM for the Typhoon until the Meteor comes online.

"Screw them, we can always integrate Derby/Python onto any Rafale until we get Meteors"

Uhh, nope. Much easier said than done. If we wanna Derby on the Rafale, we gotta pay for the integration costs ourselves, and it ain't cheap. This is the same reason why our LaFayettes will be equipped with Aster and not ESSM or Standards. Integration costs will be borne by ourselves, and the costs are just not worth it.

"everyone will get the Typhoons ordered, the countries involved will hail it as a fantastic example of multinational cooperation, then promptly each go their own way as to customising the aircraft for their own need, each heaving a sigh of relief at the sight of each others backs. "

You're waaay too cycnical. The Typhoon's Tranche 3 configuration is already under study, and it's considered a prime candidate for the UK's FOAS system.

"The basic fact is that the program is lagging, and severely so, compared to equivalent fighters of the same generation. 4 Typhoons, 3 from UK and 1 German, flew together for the 1st time recently at Farnborough. Some see it as an achievement. I say, "about damn time" "

Yes, I agree on this point, but IOC date is actually the same as that of the Rafale.

Viper52 SG

[quote]Originally posted by YourFather:

"I thought we've gone thru this B4?! They cannot deny us integration of the AMRAAM on the Typhoon, as its already integrated on the plane! we're not the only ones using that plane. Germany,UK, they use it too, and the AMRAAM is their principal AAM for the Typhoon until the Meteor comes online."

Ahhh...thats where you're wrong my friend. After the last time we talked about this I did a little digging, and shaking down some of my contacts. AMRAAM is CLEARED FOR the Typhoon, Rafale etc but NOT repeat NOT integrated. Clearing for carriage and integrated for carriage are 2 totally different things. Same deal with RSAFs F-5S/T, cleared for but not integrated with AMRAAM. These same sources have confirmed that the among the tactics used by the Yanks to dissuade the S.Koreans from buying "Not made in USA" was telling them integration with AMRAAM on a non-Amercian platform was a DEFINITE non-starter.(ie you don't buy "made in USA" plane, you don't get "made in USA missile")

"Uhh, nope. Much easier said than done. If we wanna Derby on the Rafale, we gotta pay for the integration costs ourselves"

At least it won't be a case of "can pay but barred by Yank export restrictions situation like we so often seem to find ourselves in"

"You're waaay too cycnical. The Typhoon's Tranche 3 configuration is already under study, and it's considered a prime candidate for the UK's FOAS system."

Like the case with all European defence plans. I'll believe it when I see it. Its now nothing but a pipe dream(like quite alot of aspects of the Typhoon program Very Happy ). They say they want this and that, but how often will the plans come through without cuts here, amendments there or cancellation altogether? Maybe I'm cynical, but its cynicism borne of experience. Look how everyone went their separate ways once the Jaguars and Tornadoes joined their respective services...

"Yes, I agree on this point, but IOC date is actually the same as that of the Rafale"

Really...so how come the Aeronavale were celebrating the first operational combat cruise, first combat missions, and first combat missions carrying LIVE weapons for the Rafale *before* the consortium was celebrating the first time 4 Typhoons fly in formation? Very Happy

I'll admit, if all the qualities on paper are true, Typhoon and Rafale are almost evenly matched, I do believe the entry into service dates of a lot of weapons, as well as of the aircraft themselves, swing the advantage to the French, not to mention the lesser leverage the Americans have over the French to place "export restrictions" on this and that.

And before anyone says that thats not going to happen, we don't need to look beyond Singapore's Sidewinders for this. Why have we always been stuck with second rate AIM-9P-3/4s while the best in market then were the AIM-9L. And when we finally get the L derivative, its again the downgraded S instead of the M carried by US/NATO....

« Previous Page Next Page »