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...

Viper52 SG

It does look a bit flimsy to me also, it might be able to withstand normal flight parameters, but the thing looks like it won't take much to snap it off and fling the assembly through the cockpit or worse, the rotor. Looks to me like it was designed by one of the "The computer says it'll work means it will work" brigade.(ie. one of those engineers who's doesn't know a spanner from a screwdriver - believe me we get a lot of those)

As for the selection, I have no idea, vut should be any time now....

YourFather SG

""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" "

Cleared but not integrated? Confused Shocked I dont understand. If its not integrated, then what's the UK, German etc Typhoons going to carry as their principal medium range A2A missile until the Meteor comes online? Even if its not integrated (yet), it'll be.

As for the rest, well, its up to us to believe what we want, yes? Smile

""The computer says it'll work means it will work" brigade.(ie. one of those engineers who's doesn't know a spanner from a screwdriver - believe me we get a lot of those) "

The B2 was totally designed from the computer. Heck, Boeing's X-32 design was CAD/CAM, and its flying characteristics were simulated on computer. The results were so similar to its real flying qualities that their engineers were stunned. So why the skeptism over computers?

Viper52 SG

"Cleared but not integrated? Confused Shocked I dont understand. If its not integrated, then what's the UK, German etc Typhoons going to carry as their principal medium range A2A missile until the Meteor comes online? Even if its not integrated (yet), it'll be."

Cleared for carriage simply means the external stores has been cleared to carriage by the parent aircraft, ie pylons are suitable for it, weight of the stores won't break the wing off the aircraft, and can be integrated. Integrated means the stores electronics gizmos work with the aircrafts gizmos, the FCS, the radar etc etc. A big world of difference.

Same deal with our F-16s and F-5s, they've been cleared to carry AMRAAM, but the software has not been installed in the aircraft computers yet. Word from a US contact of mine down at Luke says that the RSAF Vipers there have only recently had the AMRAAM software uploaded and the pilots have begun the AMRAAM software training. See the difference? It simply means that our Vipers have all this while been cleared to carry the AMRAAM, but only reently have they been integrated with it.

The Americans allow integration of AMRAAM for the Germans and the Brits and the Spaniards. Why not? They're all NATO members. Like it or not, Singapore is a 2nd rate ally compared to the countries mentioned above. They've already used that non-integration tactic to twist the RoK's arms to get them to buy Eagle, and I'm willing to bet my life savings they'll do the same to us when its time to decide on our next fighter.

"The B2 was totally designed from the computer. Heck, Boeing's X-32 design was CAD/CAM, and its flying characteristics were simulated on computer. The results were so similar to its real flying qualities that their engineers were stunned. So why the skeptism over computers?"

Because I have worked with several different FEM programs as well as CATIA, the CAD/CAM program used by Dassault to design the Rafale, albeit in a learning, as opposed to a working, environment. And always, without fail, our instructors for each of the different programs cannot stress often enough that the results obtained through the program do not ALWAYS mirror the real thing, and if the real results are similar to the computer simulation, it is more of a fluke than anything else(why do you think the X-32 engineers you mentioned were stunned? Cos it ain't supposed to happen, not often anyway...). Experimentations we did in real world environments gave us results that vindicated what our FEM + CAD/CAM instructors said.

I attended a lecture last year on aircraft fatigue, taught by a big shot from IAI and attended by people throughout the Aussie aviation industry. One thing that stood out in my mind from the course is this little snippet.

When LM designed the C-130J using the CAD/CAM and FEM programs, out on a whim, they put through the designs of the basic C-130A to H models through the same programs. Did you know what the result was? The computer simulations concluded that the C-130A,B,E and H are not flyable, as in, the damn designs were not supposed to take off and sustain flight.

Now, who/what do you believe? 40+ years of sterling service from the polar caps to the hottest deserts in all loadouts and missions, or a computer that tells you the design will not be able to fly?

And finally, no, I'm not denouncing computers in anyway or saying they're totally useless. My point is that we should always take things in perspective and realise that computers are not the be all and end all of things, they are not necessarily always right. That is a fact thats been proven time and time again.

Shotgun SG

Singapore’s position as 2nd rate ally probably won’t change much. But, we are now one of the few better equipped allies in the region. We are now in the “hot zone,” where any confrontation is more likely, on a smaller scale. Can Malaysia or Indonesia, or anyone else nearby be as reliable an ally as us? Thinking along this line, I guess they might be able to provide us more… =)

Viper52 SG

Ahhh...but will THEY think along that line? Look at how long they took to release the AMRAAMs for sale to Singapore, and then only with the silly arrangements of "basing in US till Singapore is faced with imminent threat". On the surface, the relationship is rosy, but it has been riddled with constant US reservations over the transfer of technology to Singapore

No matter how you look at it, South Korea is a closer ally to the US than us, esp with the Stalinist hordes north of the 38th, and yet the US still sees fit to pull that AMRAAM integration stunt with them. I'm sorry to say this, but I don't share your optimism over this. The history is against it...

YourFather SG

Yes, I know the difference between "cleared for" and "integrated". But since the software codes for AMRAAM integration has been released to the Eurofighter consortium, I dont see why they cannot provide it for the Eurofighter when selling it to us. The US can deny the codes for integration to the Rafale, as it hasn't been integrated on that plane yet. Not so for the Eurofighter. I dont believe Austria decided to buy the Typhoon without the AMRAAM being able to be used on it.

As for the computer part, I really have to say that you know more than me. Embarassed But the impression I got from articles was that the advance in computer simulation technology was so great that most of the time, they were almost 90% correct. (Of course, that depends on how well the simulation software is written, rite?)

"silly arrangements of "basing in US till Singapore is faced with imminent threat". "

That is just being consistent with not introducing a new capability into a region, such that the arms balance is affected. No big deal, they've been doing that for long long time.

"US still sees fit to pull that AMRAAM integration stunt with them"

Well, that's not really totally incomprehensible. First of all, much American blood has been shed for Korea in the Korean war. If they feel Korea owes them a debt, that's not really unreasonable. Maintaining American presence in Korea ain't cheap either, and their presence HAS been more than useful in maintaining the peace. Of course they will use as much political leverage as they can to secure the order. (Its a big order, its a VERY important order for Boeing, they are owed a favor, it ain't fair to other competitors, but they dont have no troops stationed in Korea, do they?)

Joe Black SG

Regardless of which Euro-canard planes (ie Rafale or Typhoon), US reserve the rights to release AMRAAM software to the each sales from manufacturers regardless if they have already previously been integrated. US can effectively remove the AMRAAM software on the Vipers and Super bugs why not the euro-canards?

As for the computer part, I really have to say that you know more than me. Embarassed But the impression I got from articles was that the advance in computer simulation technology was so great that most of the time, they were almost 90% correct. (Of course, that depends on how well the simulation software is written, rite?)

In all my real world experience, computer simulation also serves as a rough estimates and never could produce highly accurate results. There are too many variables in real life world to be able to accurately put them into simulations. Too many times US armed forces people have discovered that their weapons do not work as well as they have expected and that practices in simulations did not equate to realities. Of course, then again, I have to say that computer simulations have gone a long distance and being refined all the time. They do have their place in manufactoring and design. They speed things up by and large. The refinement will have to be done during real life prototyping stage to refine what the computer does not "see" or "predict".

Wind-tunnel tests and all different sorts of computer simulations are at best 80 to 90% accurate. The rest of the 10 to 20% refinement has to be done by experienced designers and engineers on the ground... Smile

Overall computer simulations have done lots of wonderful things, just look at current and next US Submarine designs, they are almost all done by computer simulations; the F22 avionics, (though the refinement sare still done on the test-bed aircraft), and of course the well known NASA X35... Smile

That is just being consistent with not introducing a new capability into a region, such that the arms balance is affected. No big deal, they've been doing that for long long time.

Thus it might be prudent to get the Rafale/Mica or Rafale/Derby mix given that we know that our neighour up North are trying to integrate their Mig29s with AMRAAMski.

Viking1 SG

Hello there,

I think Singapore should select the Rafale Mk2 from Dassault.

- F-18E/F has very good avionics and radar, but it is beaten by Rafale and Typhoon in raw aerodynamic performance. You may like to know that F-18C/D did ACM dogfight with CDG Rafales during Afghanistan operations and the Hornet was apparently dominated. Just for the info, the F-14 was slaughtered, but it's kind of normal as it was never meant to be a dogfighter. No BVR engagements have been performed because the US and the French do not want to reveal the firing parameters of the latest C-5 AMRAAM and MICA.

And of course the very fact that Malaysia is getting F-18E should de facto rule out this option for Singapore IMHO.

- Typhoon is great and yes it does reach IOC at the same time as Rafale for the French Air Force but there is a big difference in a sense that 2005 Rafale for the French Air Force are F2 variant with considerable a2g capability (all kinds of PGM, including GPS-guided AASM, SCALP cruise missile...). 2005 Typhoon is strictly air-to-air... Rafale will also have the nice OSF and I believe Typhoon will feature the PIRATE IRST.

However it should be said that by 2008 the Typhoon should get all its a2g modes and by that time the Rafale will get upgraded to F3 which is basically a F2 with a new software for the RBE2 TFR mode for very low level nuclear strike using the new ASMP-A missile. In a2a both planes are getting their new targeting helmets with off-boresight short-range missiles (ASRAAM for Typhoon, probably IRIS-T for Rafale).

IMHO Singapore should get some Rafale Mk2 with the RBE2+active antenna (very comparable to APG-79) and the uprated M88-3C. The increased thrust does not very much increase the dogfighting performances according to simulations but it will definitely increase the climb rate and for a country which does not have a E-3 it may be of some use to be able to scramble its fighters in case of a late detected intrusion in the Singapore airspace.

For the missiles, Singapore should get a mix of MICA EM and MICA IR. Forget about Magic 2, use the MICA IR for short range (mounted on the wing tips). When Meteor becomes available, get them if your neighbour gets AMRAAM or R-77 in good qty.

Viper52 SG

[quote]Originally posted by Joe Black:

"Regardless of which Euro-canard planes (ie Rafale or Typhoon), US reserve the rights to release AMRAAM software to the each sales from manufacturers regardless if they have already previously been integrated. US can effectively remove the AMRAAM software on the Vipers and Super bugs why not the euro-canards?"

Exactly. Even if Eurofighter has all the software codes it needs to integrate AMRAAM onto any Typhoons Singapore gets, who does the software belong to in the end? The Yanks! and if they tell the consortium not to upload the codes to the Typhoons Singapore orders, YourFather do you seriously expect the Europeans to circumvent the American objections and give us the sourcecodes?

"Thus it might be prudent to get the Rafale/Mica or Rafale/Derby mix given that we know that our neighour up North are trying to integrate their Mig29s with AMRAAMski."

Yup, better to get a missile/plane combi which is at least the equivalent of the Typhoon/AMRAAM if not better that you know will definitely be available for purchase(Rafale + Derby/MICA) rather than hedge our bets on a combination that is seriously lagging and whose export availability is less than assured(Typhoon + AMRAAM).

Joe Black SG

Originally posted by Viking1:
Hello there,

I think Singapore should select the Rafale Mk2 from Dassault.

Well, Viking1, there are a few of us who reckon RSAF is better of getting Rafale F2/F3 too. RKoAF recently had the fighter competition and Rafale came in top, the only real sad thing is that due to political issues, RKoAF chose the F-15K instead.

- F-18E/F has very good avionics and radar, but it is beaten by Rafale and Typhoon in raw aerodynamic performance. You may like to know that F-18C/D did ACM dogfight with CDG Rafales during Afghanistan operations and the Hornet was apparently dominated.

In terms of avionics - purely on the radar performance, I think the Superbugs kick asses. Not only the AESA radar APG-79 have greater Air-to-Air modes and range compared to the current Rafale radar and the ECR-90, but also it has greater number of Air-to-surface modes, notably the Syntactic Aperture and Terrain Following modes. However, as you have pointed out, in terms of raw aerodynamics performance, the superbugs lose out to the euro-canards (with the exception of Gripen) by quite a fair bit.

However, if RSAF want a air supermacy fighter and BVR engagement is the prime mission, then getting Typhoons and Superbugs make senses (once again provided US is willing to release the AMRAAMs) or RSAF will have to wait for the Meteors. I am impressed by how many AMRAAMs the superbugs can carry. I have seen a AAM config with 10 to 12 AAMs. The Super bugs does lose out in stealth though because they lack an IRST like that of Rafale and Typhoon. The radar signature will betray the Superbugs' positions albeit they out range most fighters' radars range.

No BVR engagements have been performed because the US and the French do not want to reveal the firing parameters of the latest C-5 AMRAAM and MICA.

I won't be surprised. I suspect the current C-5 version may outrange the Micas, but Micas are almost certain to outrange the As and Bs version, maybe the pre-C5 versions too. The only thingy that is different from the C and B versions as I understand is that C version has the folding fins so that 6 can be installed inside the Raptors weapon bay instead of 4 in the As and Bs.

And of course the very fact that Malaysia is getting F-18E should de facto rule out this option for Singapore IMHO.

Why? It is ok to have the Super bugs even if RMAF have a few of them. Afterall, the worst case scenarios is the RSAF superbug face an RMAF superbug. In terms of performance, they will be equivalent, then it really comes down to the pilot skills and overall C3I over the sky. Given RSAF's investment in AEW platforms and various datalink technologies, I favour RSAF's survivbility. Of course, RMAF may only be able to fund an E version with the same APG-72(?)/75(? forgot which number) radar whereas RSAF version may get the AESA version.

- Typhoon is great and yes it does reach IOC at the same time as Rafale for the French Air Force but there is a big difference in a sense that 2005 Rafale for the French Air Force are F2 variant with considerable a2g capability (all kinds of PGM, including GPS-guided AASM, SCALP cruise missile...). 2005 Typhoon is strictly air-to-air... Rafale will also have the nice OSF and I believe Typhoon will feature the PIRATE IRST.

I think Rafale has already reach IOC with the French AF, and the French Navy is not far behind. Typhoon... Smile hee hee... we all know that they have a few more years to go.

Rafales have been, from the onset, to be a multirole. Typhoon on the other hand has always been designed first as an air superiorty fighter (to replace the German F-4F, GB's F2 Tornadoes, Italian's StarFighters/F2, Spainish's F-4s). The French wanted a true multirole and that was partly the reason why they left the EFA project.

I see the only real hinderance for greater French sales is that Rafales are currently only integrated with French weapons but not standard NATO ones even when they are cleared to carry them. I think if Dassault Aviation makes some effect in integrating NATO weapons as a standard export version, then I'm confident the sales will come. Furthermore, I think its time the French get their HMS integrated ASAP. Furthermore, the French can also do the naughty trick of getting in bed with the Israeli Rafael and integrate their Python 4s and Derbys with the Rafales.

IMHO Singapore should get some Rafale Mk2 with the RBE2+active antenna (very comparable to APG-79) and the uprated M88-3C. The increased thrust does not very much increase the dogfighting performances according to simulations but it will definitely increase the climb rate and for a country which does not have a E-3 it may be of some use to be able to scramble its fighters in case of a late detected intrusion in the Singapore airspace.

For the missiles, Singapore should get a mix of MICA EM and MICA IR. Forget about Magic 2, use the MICA IR for short range (mounted on the wing tips). When Meteor becomes available, get them if your neighbour gets AMRAAM or R-77 in good qty.

I am confident that RSAF would probably ask for the F3 variant with the nice RBE2+ active phased array radar and the uprated M88-3 engines; and most probably Micas. If the French can't deliever this in the 2005 to 2007 timeframe, I am pretty sure a "free" upgrade clause will be in somewhere in the contract. If we are "lucky" we might even see the Rafales carrying Python 4 with an Israeli made HMS (DASH-3 or JHMS).

Viking1 SG

Hi Joe Black,

A few comments on your input...

- The Rafale that is proposed to Singapore is called the Mk2, and it does include the AESA variant of the RBE2. So "Active RBE2" and APG-79 share the same technology and both have been built as multirole radars, i.e not necessary with a huge range in a2a (but still quite respectable) but with a lot of modes. I don't think APG-79 has more modes than the active RBE2, and if you look at the size of the two system (very compact), they probably have the same power output. Both use the same first generation of T/R modules. "Active RBE2" will have 1,000 modules, not sure about APG-79.

- Warload for a2a: Rafale can also carry 12 MICA (this configuration was proposed during the Korean tender).

- AMRAAM outranges the MICA by a little bit (confirmed to me by a MBDA guy during the Singapore Aerospace show).

- I still think it is a problem for Singapore to get the SH if Malaysia also gets that aircraft. Even if you count on Singapore alledged superiority in training, you will still be flying an aircraft that has no secret to your adversary. For example, Malaysia could easily learn how to fine-tune its SAM to maximise kill probability against a SH.

- Rafale has not reached IOC within the French Air Force, only in the Navy and only 8 planes in F1 variant (strictly air-to-air) onboard CDG. The Air Force will get its first squadron operational by late 2005. And again, these will be F2 Rafales, with a2g modes. By the way, just to illustrate this, the first quadron to get the Rafale will be the 11th squadron which currently flies... the Jaguar. So you can see that ground strike will be a primary mission for the first Rafale in the French Air Force.

- You are right that Typhoon was designed as an interceptor first, and was then assigned a2g mission during its development. The consequence of this... the Typhoon put on weigh... 1 ton extra ! Don't trust websites that talk about an empty weigh of 10t for the Typhoon, this is only for the first prototypes. Production aircrafts will be in the 11t range. The main reason is that the Engineers had to strenghten the airframe, especially the wing which is very thin. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to badmouth the Typhoon, I think it's a great performer actually.

- About NATO ordinance for the Rafale...yes you are right that it's a problem for some potential customers, even thought the French have or are developping a pretty complete range of PGM/missiles (SCALP, Apache, AASM, LGB...). Rafale still lacks a SEAD missile though. As for the HMS, it will be ready at the same time as the Typhoon's. (around 200 Cool . The issue is not so much on the capability side than on the cost side: French missiles are expensive.

- Lastly, there is no problem for the timeframe, by 2006 the French can deliver RBE2 active, M88-3 and MICA IR. RBE2 active already exists and is in test (not flying though). M88-3 has actually been running for more than a year, but again not integrated into the airframe. As for MICA IR, they just entered service in the French AF this year on their Mirage2000-5, 3 years after getting their first MICA EM. OSF will be ready for the first French squadron aircrafts, and it's a very nice kit.

Take care,

Viking1

Viper52 SG

Hi viking1,

firstly, welcome to the discussion. Smile

Firstly, regarding to AMRAAM vs MICA range. I have already posted something in regards to this a couple of pages back i think. Raytheon has quoted the maximum range for the AMRAAM(the range when its motor stops burning), but at that range(in fact beyond 30km) its hit rate is very poor, esp against hard manoeuvring targets, the Dutch took 3 AMRAAMs to down the Serbian MiG-29 in 1999. The quoted range for the MICA however is the range whereby it can hit an agile target with high accuracy. Therein lies the difference...

As for weapons integration, US Mk.80 series Paveway series LGBs have already been sucessfully carried and dropped on targets by the Rafale. Obviouslly things like Apache/SCALP are also integrated. Ditto for MICA. Most European weapons systems are handled under the EADS umbrella, and France has a big say in EADS, and of course owns MBDA which builds lots of stores. So export/integration will unlikely be an issue. As for american weapons, yes its true that Rafale has not been integrated for stuff like JSOW, JDAM and the like, but then we'll also have to consider if the Americans will sell us those weapons even if Rafale is integrated. My case has always been: Go for the equipment thats at least the equal of, if not better than American ones.

Joe Black SG

Hey Viper, I read somewhere that the C5 has an improved range in the region of some close to an addition of 10 to 15 nm. The "quoted" range for a C-5 version could be around 70km. But as you have said, at these extreme range, the Amraams might not have the energy to hit anything other than a straight flying large target, just like a Phoenix flying to 200 Km to hit a target. If memory serves me right, the Mica (active radar) version has a quoted range between 30 KM to 50 KM hitting an agile target whereas the IR version has a slightly lower range, or was it the other way round...

Source:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/mica.htm

http://pollux.com/defenseweb/1996/may96/air2air.htm
(this article quote 60 km)

http://www.3dpaper.gr/eng/weaponssystems/mica_weaov080101.shtml

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/AAMs.html
(Here they quote AMRAAMs at 75 KM - I think this figure is about the max range at optimal launch perimeter. At this range, the Amraams will have no energy left to hit pratically anything. The 30 to 50 KM range is still more belivable).

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-120.htm
(quotes only 20+ miles, which is about 30+ km, thus again the 30 to 50 KM range is more accurate).

http://defence-data.com/f2000/pagefa1026.htm

http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/berlin3/topsto03.htm

Interestingly, Derby's range is also quoted at 50 KM. Does it represent effective range or max range?

Viking1 SG

Derby weighs about the same as MICA but from an aerodynamic standpoint looks more like an AMRAAM, so it probably has more drag than a MICA. However, 50km is probably possible since MICA already achieved 67km in live firing by ROCAF (Taiwan).

But the thing about Derby is that it has no datalink, so hitting a high maneuvring target 50km away without any sort of refresh seems unlikely. But on the other hand, you can still disrupt your oponent tactics by firing at max range, and also no datalink means the Derby is quite cheap to purchase. A good alternative for countries who are denied AMRAAM and/or don't want to go for an all-French solution.

Joe Black SG

Originally posted by Viking1:

Derby weighs about the same as MICA but from an aerodynamic standpoint looks more like an AMRAAM, so it probably has more drag than a MICA. However, 50km is probably possible since MICA already achieved 67km in live firing by ROCAF (Taiwan).

Hmm... I suspect Mica travel anywhere more than 50+ km won't have the agility to kill much. The last bit of distance are almost certainly done by the kinetic energy of the missile. But it still some decent distance though.

But the thing about Derby is that it has no datalink, so hitting a high maneuvring target 50km away without any sort of refresh seems unlikely. But on the other hand, you can still disrupt your oponent tactics by firing at max range, and also no datalink means the Derby is quite cheap to purchase. A good alternative for countries who are denied AMRAAM and/or don't want to go for an all-French solution.

Come to think about it, it would be a real cool thing for RSAF to armed the F-5S/T with Python 4 and Derby, the Vipers with Python 4, AIM-9 for WVR targets and AIM-120 and Deby for BVRs. Of course the F-5 S/T would then need the DASH-3 helmets and the Vipers would get either the DASH-3 or JHMDS

thomasct SG

Hi Everyone Smile ,

AMRAAMs, Micas, Derby, R 77 etc are really NOT FIRE & FORGET missiles -

All such missiles have to be " continuous " steer to the target aircraft by the firing aircraft radar by way of datalink .

When the target is within AAM radar seeker range, only then AAM seeker will then switch on to searched for & lock-on to the target AC.

Only when the AAM itself lock into the emey AC , then it become really "" FIRE & FORGET "" .

Without the datalink , the missiles is next to useless in BVR mode.

If the loss of even a few second of the datalink control will render the AAM flying off target area .

As for aircraft can be load with 10 - 15 AAM is not the true indication of the aircraft multi-targeting capabilities

But the question that should be ask is how many AAMs can be control by the firing fire control system ??.

One aircraft can control up to 2 - 3 AAMs at one time ??

For the above missile to be really to be FIRE & FORGET without use of datalink control - the AAM seeker radar itself has to lock onto the target aircraft before firing.

Since such missiles radar seeker have a range of less than 15 kms - ??? and with a limit seeker radar coverage

By the way, all you Mr. Green should know that the datalink systems can be jammed etc.

For disscussion : Wink Wink

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Viking1

"" But the thing about Derby is that it has no datalink, so hitting a high maneuvring target 50km away without any sort of refresh seems unlikely. ""

_____________________________________________________

Derby missile system come with a date link system.

Chile AF have installed antennas on the front of their F-5 - (just behind the radar dome / in front of the cockpit. ) in order to guide the Derby missile.

tripwire SG

If EW is so good at dealing with BVR missile... why bother to have BVR missiles in view of the proliferation of EW suite all over the world??

I would have thought... that the Missiles designers would have taken into account.. the possibility of having the BVR missiles flying in EW active zone....

I think.... maybe the RSAF should consider putting laser on its fighter planes... such weapons have immense range... accuracy and can hit so fast and be invisible to the eye.... I heard that the F22 is gonna get a laser gun..... or isit the JSF is gonna get a lazer gun.....

bigballs11 SG

No really man, not long ago, the SAF weaponary purchase state only Western weaponary. Now you can see russian weaponary in our inventory (the IGLA missile is one good example). Even the Su30 also appear in the list of possible weapon purchase. At 8 million a copy that is dirt cheap, so in economy point of view buy more cheap and rugged plane which we have the "ability" to maintain using our existing know-how is not a bad option either Rolling Eyes

Orcishwarrior SG

See the Iglas is a portable sTa missiles,while su-30 is a combat jet which consider tons of components it carrys with it.One small minor damage in any one of many component could doom the jet.Which can be in a dogfight.Surely we dun want this to happen to our jet.
Russian planes are dirt cheap well all of us know that is y many third world countries prefer russian stuff.For a country which could afford the better western tech .Why do we need to get something which is unreliable,the russian planes can be a clocking time bomb
it can explore when we need them most Twisted Evil Shocked Smile .For yr information we need their spare parts ok and they simply have a bad reputation for it lousy logistic support.
U KNOW WANT I DISMISS THAT PROBABLITY THAT SINGAPORE WILL EVER GET RU PLANES Mad

Shotgun SG

So far, Singapore govt. doesn't seem to have the habit of buying brand new products, such as the Typhoon. The F-16 for example, was already a proven and widely acknowledged fighter when Singapore decided to order them. So far, among the shortlisted fighters, only the F-15E, F-16 Block60, Rafale, F/A-18E/Fs have been flown in combat sorties. The New F-16 of course, has not actually been flown in any sorties, but its predecessors has, so I am quite reluctant to include it into the "more likely" list. And only 3 of the above 4, are in active service.

The F-15E is a proven mudhen. No contest over that fact.

The Superhornets are not so proven yet. Moreover, I doubt that Singapore would buy Superbugs cos Malaysia's already gettin them. Its not a matter of pride, technological secrets or anything. Just that, if action gets close, pilots will have to look out for the Markings on the wing before he pumps lead into the target.

Rafale, same as Superhornet, hasn't really won its spurs yet though. But still a likely candidate.

Su-30s are in active service with the Indian Air force if I'm not wrong. We'll probably get feedback from them. Perhaps our President might have some relatives there. Note, the Su-30MK is an EXPORT model.

The only problem with the Typhoon, i feel, is that its too new.

« Previous Page Next Page »