New RSN Stealth ship? Not La Fayette

last SG · 2002-03-06T10:53:00+00:00

However, ST does not build something that Singapore will not be buying - the only exception being the F-16 avionics upgrade. That was due to the soured relat...

YourFather SG

I just came back from AA2002. Hee, I'm on cloud 9 right now... well... what can I say... the F-15 flight demo made me think of 1 word - POWER, but its a heavy aircraft, unlike the F-16, which just seemed to be carrying out an aerial ballet, dancing around the sky without any loss of energy. The ShittyHornet seemed lethargic, as if it was not willing to GO! Rafale was also impressive, but not as nimble as the F-16. The B-1 was really impressive, with the first a high speed pass, that was FWAH!! Awrite, enuff of my rambling....
A few things I noticed at the airshow:
1. Where was the GODDAMNED SU-30!?!? Dont tell me the Russians so no money until after trade days, want to save fuel and go home?
2. ST is developing MAVs like PhantomEye...hmmm, interesting...never knew that
3. ST also seems to be producing the LongShot kit, but I thought that this was designed by an American company?
4. The F-16 on show was a Block 60, it seems.

For Shotgun's post, the F-18E/F Hornet's main advantage is its improved technology, range and space for upgrades. However, It's improved technology will come only after around the 200th production unit, as before that, they will come with APG-73s, which are the radars in use by the current Hornet C version. Flight performance, as shown, suffers slightly when compared to the F-18C's performance, which is itself modest.

Now for Viper. On the SuperHornet, I fully understand your indignation :-) I was just as surprised as you when I read that part. However, strange as it seems, that article or defense-analyst wasn't the only one who put the ShittyHornet in such a strong position, though the rest of the articles were a little dated.

Back to our little debate. You surprised me when you said that an emptier order book is better. While its true that we get the Rafale when we want it, I'd rather go for something which many people have, cause its safer(logistically speaking). Also, with Eurofighter having many customers, many user-specific software integration modifications will be made. All this modifications will be managed by a central office (which was just set up) which will make available these modifications to other users when required, at no cost, I presume. This makes the part of AMRAAM integration with the Typhoon a non-problem - the US will definitely allow integration of the AMRAAM with Typhoon (dont tell me US dont give UK face?) The Rafale has a lower chance of AMRAAM integration than the Typhoon, though if you ask me, US rejecting Rafale's AMRAAM integration would be very unlikely.
The basic test programme of the Rafale, being completed, would be an advantage for customer confidence when purchasing now, that I concede. But if we get the Typhoon, the test programme would be similarly completed too, and both would be just as ready for service, so again, I see no advantage possessed by Rafale in this area.
Far more advanced integration of systems, on this point, I agree fully that the Rafale has the edge in this area. The problem with the Typhoon is that the specifications for the Tranche 3 Typhoon is not concrete, and we would perhaps get Tranche 2 first, with an option for upgrade to Tranche 3 upon agreement on Tranche 3 specifications. (This is the way I see it, if we get Typhoon)
The part of more advanced weapons..... dont the Rafale and Typhoon use (almost) the same weapons, with the exception of the Mica? I would have to hear your part on that.
Combat experience... I presume you are referring to the Afghan conflict? If so, then that wont really be much of an advantage, cause the Afghans do not have any sophisticated SAMs to speak of, and no fighters to counter the Rafale. So, the Rafale doesn't have to "turn and burn", and doesn't have a chance to test its EW and avionics equipment. What it CAN do, is carry out operational sortie testing, which is , however, able to be done during peacetime.
As for the choice of Koreans, their requirements may not match with ours. We have a warmer climate too, something which the Rafale's M88 engines are less able to handle. Furthermore, from this paragraph, "One program official described the NFR RFI as "a very detailed document, much more detailed than any equivalent request I have ever seen." Singapore is also understood to be looking at a future force mix in which the F-16 fleet will be tasked with the strike/attack role and the chosen NFR aircraft would take on a dedicated air-to-air role.", I'd say that the Typhoon, which has the edge in A2A, is a better choice for Singapore, if you take into account performance only.
Tech transfer and training facilities provided, these 2 areas, Dassault Rafale wins, I concede.

lionelow SG

looks like the F-15K real good wonder if RSAF shortlisted this model

Joe Black SG

YourFather, you did point out interesting facts, but I think we also have to first look at RSAF requirements.

If RSAF wants a long range air supermacy fighter NOW, Rafale is a better choice given that it is almost ready to take on CFT. Typhoon is a little short legged given that the fighter is designed to operate in a air defence fighter role rather than escort fighter or CAP role. Typhoon will eventually get CFT too (aiming to fulfil RAAF requirement in range). If RSAF can wait for Tranche 3, then Typhoon will probably be the choice - once again provided the Consortium produces what it promises ie. AMSAR radar and trust vectoring. Then again, Dassault might get F3 ready before Tranche 3.

If RSAF wants the next fighter also to be able to do deep peneration strikes, then Rafale is the aircraft to go for. It is ready, F2 version is already optimised for deep strike roles, and of course RSAF will get the best training facilities (in France). I not so sure about if the UK or Germany would strike a similar training agreement with Singapore. Germans are already restricting Luftwaffe from doing too many low level flying exercises. RAF also seem to be facing a similar problem.

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth.

YourFather SG

Any constructive contribution to this little debate is great. First of all, I would have to say that the CFT, or the lack of it on the Typhoon, is not of very much significance to the air-superiority mission. This is because in an air-superiority mission, the flight profile flown would be hi-hi-hi, thus range would be more than adequate as a result of it flying a more efficient flight profile. Of course, added range as a result of increased fuel from CFTs is always better, but they’re not needed. (the F-15C has the ability to carry CFTs, but are almost never seen carrying them) What is more important is the avionics, and their suitability for the anti-air mission. In this area, the Typhoon, whch was primarily designed for air superiority, beats the Rafale. One more thing – though the Tranche 3 specs aren’t confirmed yet, AMSAR is an almost definite part of the Tranche 3 requirement. Whether they install thrust-vectoring or not, though, is anyone’s guess….

Joe Black SG

For your reference
======================
South Korean F-X acquisition programme flies into political storm

The efforts of the South Korean Defence Ministry to overhaul the country's fighter capabilities have hit more heavy weather as members from all political sides questioned the fairness of the process in Parliament. Throughout the troubled acquisition programme the suspicion has remained that political pressure has been exerted to ensure that Boeing's F-15K be selected over rival bids from Dassault, Eurofighter, and Sukhoi. These fears have resurfaced amid revelations over leaks to the press and a controversial alteration in the system being used to evaluate the merits of the respective bids.

The 4.2 trillion won (3.2 billion-dollar) project to buy 40 fighters, was delayed in February as none of the four bidders could match the strict financial restrictions the government had imposed on the project. The defence ministry decided to proceed with the programme and a winner was due to be announced in March or April after a further period of evaluation.

Doubts grew last month when Defense Minister Kim Dong-Shin stressed that South Korea should consider security ties with the United States in the project, although he insisted that no pressure had been brought to bear by the US itself. If Boeing does not secure the contract it would likely spell the end of production for the ageing F-15.

"The fairness of the evaluation methods is doubtful," Kang Chang-Sung of the opposition Grand National Party said. "We suspect the defence ministry has political considerations to select the F-15K."

This suspicion has intensified since reports in the Korean press have revealed that the Air Force's evaluation of the merits of the four competing planes indicated that Dassault's Rafale was the superior aircraft, rated as "excellent" in all of the required areas. The defence ministry has promised to investigate the leaks but even members of the ruling Millenium Democratic Party are now questioning the process.

Further questions have been raised by the ministry's decision to alter the scoring system. The ministry revised its evaluation in February to ensure that all four bidders received automatic 60 points, out of a possible 100, for technology transfer. The ministry insisted that this was fair as all the competitors had fulfilled the original requirements laid out by the acquisition process. However, critics claim that the change has been made to assist Boeing's claim as the US company should have gained fewer points than Dassault in terms of technology transfer and subcontracts.

One way or another the decision must be made in the next month or so, but if Boeing wins the contract it is doubtful that the controversy will recede.
http://defence-data.com/current/page13776.htm

Joe Black SG

Itsn't it interesting that over and over again, reports surface that the Koreans have found Rafale the winner of their evaluation. I think RSAF would find the same too, but whether they will eventually purchase Rafale is another story.

I am just as happy for RSAF if they choose either the Rafales or Typhoons, but please, no Super Bugs...

I've got the gut feeling that RMAF would settle for Super bugs though....

Viper52 SG

Shotgun,

my argument for the Rafale hinges on a lot more than the 2 points you've mentioned. I have also referred to the following points in previous posts.

Training - Singapore already has a training detachment in France. The groundwork, facilities, relationship and other factors are already there. It would be a considerably smaller burden if training for the new fighters is set up in a place where we already have a detachment. Look at the current RSAF permanent overseas training detachments, US(5), France, Australia(3), Brunei and Thailand. I'm sure you'll agree that the logistical burden is already significant, and there're other temp detachments to consider. Why go through the trouble of setting up additiona facilities?

Capabilities - Like I and Joe Black have highlighted in previous posts, in evaluation by the RoKAF has already pointed to the Rafale as the best choice on technical merit, F-15K 2nd and Typhoon 3rd. These are the guys who actually looked at the planes, are going to fly and maintain the planes and made their choice, rather than reading the brochures given out at airshows or articles written by biased "analysts" in magazines. Who are we to say that they are wrong?

Combat experience - Combat expericnce is not all about how many planes you shot down, how many SAMS you evade etc. Its about the increased tempo of combat ops, the increased strain on machines and equipment to do what they're supposed to. rafale has done that, while Typhoon hasn't even embarked on any significant long haul flights to overseas airshow. Now thats REAL confidence from the consortium about its abilities.

Timeframe - Another point which I've made over and over again. The flight test program is almost complete for the Rafale, including basic flight tests, weapons tests. Tests with the CFTs are already at an advance stage. We'll be getting an aircraft which is ready for opoerations from the word go in terms of the Rafale. To compare the CFT for example: I've seen a real Rafale with CFTs flying, the only Typhoon CFT I've seen is a snazzy computer grpahic on a bus advert.

The most difficult part of weapons integration is the addition of software codes to the aircraft mission computers to allow its systems to opoerate the weapon. In the case of Rafale with derby we need both Rafael's and Dassaults help to integrate this. We can be sure both parties will be willing to do so. AMRAAM integration will therefore be needed to be carried out by Raytheon, and hence the question of US arms export policies will rear its head again.

asic fact is this: They're both good fighters, I'm sure. But the fact is that the Rafale, when other factors are taken into account, would suit our requirements much better than the Typhoon. It may be older, but then the Apache was older than the Tiger, look where the attack helo contract went.

Viper52 SG

F-16 on show is a Block 50. The 35th FW based in Misawa Japan(tailcode: WW) operates F-16C/D Block 50 aircraft, and a check with the production numbers on the aircraft would confirm that all 3 aircraft are Block 50s. The CFTs, pods and seekers on the aircraft in the static display are cobbled on by the LM people AFTER the F-16 arrived. After all, the USAF operates NO Block 60s and the first flight of the F-16 CFT was just a month or so back.

YourFather: Customers for the Typhoon? Yup, they have lots. Spain UK Germany and Italy. Which are the development partners. Greece? In the article posted earlier it was already stated that it has its arm twisted into buying the Typhoon. So in terms of export customers who've selected Typhoon purely on merit = 0

As for the AMRAAM integration, you seem to have a lot of confidence that the US will ok the UK to integrate the AMRAAM if the UK asks. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I don't share your confidence. More likely it'll be the other way round: The UK will be unlikely to not give the US 'face' by insisting on AMRAAM integration even if the US says no.

You wrote: "The problem with the Typhoon is that the specifications for the Tranche 3 Typhoon is not concrete, and we would perhaps get Tranche 2 first, with an option for upgrade to Tranche 3 upon agreement on Tranche 3 specifications. (This is the way I see it, if we get Typhoon) "

Isn't this one of the supposed points against the Rafale in that earlier article you posted? The one where "why get a downgraded version now when you can get the better one later?" Smile

Weapons. Yup, thats right, the Meteor is supposed to equip both Typhoon and Rafale. What my point is the weapons before Meteor arrives. The Rafale is sure to have MICA, while the Typhoon will have only Skyflash and Sparrow if AMRAAM approval is not given. and if what I've heard is true, it WILL NOT be given.

I've addressed the problem of the M88 long ago in earlier posts. The newer M88-3 engines, designed specifically for hot and high operations have already been cleared for export in Rafales. The underpowered M88-2, which eveb tge French admit is underpowered for hot and high ops, is not a factor at all. Smile

Typhoon edge in A2A? How confirmed is that? On what basis is that argument derived from? Computer simulations? I've worked quite a bit with FEM programs for aerospace applications in my course of study, and every person who does this programs will alway say before he does anything "The are just programs which will simulate the actual aircraft, and it should not be taken as how the actual plane will actually perform". The Typhoon is nothign ahort of a paper aeroplane, doing well in computer simulations and drawing board. I would prefer to reserve judgement until the consortium actually gets its act together and starts demonstrating in real life what their pet project can do.

Viper52 SG

JB, I find that very interesting also. Like I've mentioned, they professional people who would evetually fly, maintain and have examined the planes close up have already stated that the Rafale is the best choice on technical merit, followed by the F-15K and then the Typhoon. I thnk that really says it all doesn't it?

Joe Black SG

To add to Viper's comment, I have read from Air Force Technology web site that Rafale is compatible with all current NATO weapons, including AMRAAMs. I'm not sure if that means that Dassult will be integrating AMRAAMs onto Rafales, if they have already tested (include test fires or what) AMRAAMs on Rafales. I can't see how difficult it would be to integrate AMRAAMs technically. The only problem once again is the export laws in the US. Why do you think RSAF still cannot have AMRAAMs back home but have to keep them in Canon/Luke AFBs?

Secondly, given ST Aero experience in integrating Python 4 (btw, Asia Pacific Defence Journals confirms that Python 4 is on the Block 50s Vipers - when and how, the author did not specify) and possibly Derby on F5S and Vipers, it is definitely not going to be too difficult integrating them to Rafale with Dassault's assistance. BTW, worse come to worse, we can also seek help from Rafael/Elta/IAI given their expertises in avionics and weapons integration. If the Israelis can integrate their weapons onto chinese made airplanes and Russian MiGs, I don't think there will be too much problem integrating them onto the French made aircraft. Furthermore, I think the French will probably produce better source codes, easier to maintain and extend. The Israelis could even extend the Vipers 20 year old source code - including their FBW source, not to say the more modern Ada language used today. Smile

YourFather SG

Yup, I do believe AMRAAM will be, if not is already, integrated on Rafale. What I meant in previous posts was that is the Typhoon had little chance of AMRAAM integration, Rafale would have even less chance. As for why we cant have the AMRAAM stored here, its just one of America's quirks about not introducing new capabilities to a region.
Now, for something else - I was just reading JDW, and in it, they said that there were persistent speculations of our Fokker 50 tail no. 713 is a 'Black Crow' SIGINT aircraft, equipped with the AR-7000. They based it on the fact that just before Fokker's bankruptcy, Fokker received 1 order for the 'Black Crow'.

Shotgun SG

Har?? Singapore already got so many crows liao, still went to order another one ah? Haiiiii.

Btw, is there any reason why RSAF would not acquire Derby as our primary medium range missile? If not, why the hell are we bothering with the AMRAAMs? Either that, Singapore should just design our own Medium Range missiles. Joint developement with some other company, ANYTHING. The same way how Israel solved their problems with the US. US refuse to sell Israel anymore F-16s, Israel decides to design brand new fighter to replace F-16 and came up with the Lavi. Once the US saw the Israeli determination to get whatever they needed, they had to give in and sell the F-16s.

Too bad Israel stopped the Lavi project and sold the design to China. Sigh.

Joe Black SG

Read a similar report about 1 of the Fokker 50 was supposed to be a SIGINT aircraft. No proof though... Haven't seen any extra ordinary anntennas or radar dome on the aircraft. However, it was more affirmed that one of the old C-130 is indeed a SIGINT aircraft. The guys at RAAF spotted that. The aircraft also has retractable anntenas. The deployment of that aircraft during the pitch black exercises caused quite a stirred during the SingTel purchase of Optus. Rumours has it that RSAF was spying on Aussies. Smile

Anybody who can confirm about the "Black Crow" would be nice, but such highly sensitive aircraft would usually not be a public domain knowledge. However, it is also not unthinkable to have 1 such plane....

Joe Black SG

As for why not use Derby as the main active guided BVR missile in RSAF, I think the issue is more political than technological. Politically, it would not be good to "introduce" this class of weapons in the region. As you know Mindef's policy of not wanting to be the first to introduce new weapons in SE Asia. If Thailand has it first, then its ok for S'pore to have it. RSAF probably has already integrated Derby into the Tigers and Vipers. It is more of a case that they are not showing them to the public and we would probably missed it when we see one. Derby looks to much like a Sidewinder. If a Viper or a Tiger is carrying them together with other winders, most of us would probably missed it.

As for the AMRAAM issue, once again, the US weapon export laws prohibits S'pore to have AMRAAMs in Singapore unless there is an obvious clear and present danger. You can bet that all the returning Vipers from the States would then be armed with Amraams and give the potential aggressor some fright.

Back to the Typhoon and Rafale integration of Amraams, I believe they are simply minor software changes. The launchers are already compatible as the NATO weapons would have standardised the launcher/Missiles hardware interface. As for the software interface, it is a manner of simply sending relevant target data to the correct interface that Amraam would accept. I am quite certain that NATO has also standardised the software interface portion. So any NATO compliant weapons should be able to adapt to any NATO compliant launcher and software interfaces. Amraam is built to be NATO compliant.

As for you suggestion of why not building a BVR ourselves, it is easier said than done. US took so long to get Amraams correct. There was a lot of technical issues with Active radar BVR missiles. That include time to target, radar seach area, pattern of search, etc. All these encompass quite a few technologies Singapore or the Defence Science Organsation has acquired.

Israelis have the know how of building missiles for a while. They are also very good at reverse engineering. If Singapore is to become a missile builder/designer, then DSO has to buy the technology know-how from countries that are willing to sell, eg. South Africa, Israel or Taiwan.

YourFather SG

with regard to why we dont make the Derby our principal A2A weapon, another reason could be because its an Isreal-made weapon. You know how sensitive the Malaysians are. 1 more thing, is Derby REALLY confirmed to be in our inventories? You guys say as if its already so. All I have heard about us having it seem to be rumours. (though there are reports that the Derby were sold to unspecified countries)

Viper52 SG

Black Crow: I've read aout the "Black Crow" too. However I think that 713 is not the one. This was reported in one of the later issue of World Air Power Journal, however 713 is one of the UTA-B transports ordered by the RSAF, and I've been in the Kaki Bukit area quite often(for other business no planespotting mind you!) and have noticed 713 doing circuits dor twin engine pilot training quite often. I believe Black Crow is one of the "MPAs" or even another aircraft, not the 9 at Changi. It'd be real interesting to see it though...

Missiles: I DO NOT know for sure that RSAF has either the Python 4 or Derby. However I have seen circumstancial evidence that seems to indicate that RSAF has at least the former. As for the latter yes it is a high possbility that we might have the Derby as well. Building our own BVRAAMs would be possible, but as YouFather and Shotgun has said, we do need quite a bit of technical support and technology transfer to do so. For all you know, we might already have both P4 and Derby, but as we have said, to avoid offending you-know-who, we have kept it quiet.

JB: The C-130 SIGINT seen by RAAF personnel? Are you sure its not some kind of conspiracy theory cooked up by the Seven Network and others opposed to singtels bid to buy Optus?After all the Australian Armed Forces have shown that they are not above bending the truth to serve "outside interests". You know, with the RANs claim that refugees threw their own children overboard going very far to help Johnnie H and his bunch of Neo-Nazi racists win the elections last year. Smile

Joe Black SG

You are right. We can never be so sure about the spying bit... but RSAF does have a SIGINT C130 that's for sure. Reported in Janes and other defence journals.

Missiles: I also read from a couple of defence journals, the latest being the Asia Pacific Defence Journals that Python 4 is already in service with the Vipers. It was an article about RSAF. Perhaps I should go buy the magazine later and quote it here in the forum Smile . However, I always reserve some doubt with articles like these as to their accuracies and sources. I do believe that RSAF indeed have Python 4 already. Only thing is that it is going to be hard to prove unless Mindef decides to declassify such information. With SAF purchase of Spike/Gill ATGMs and other Israeli stuffs, I see no reason for RSAF not to get Python 4. As for Derby, it is, as Viper has said, harder to prove, but reports from Janes have indicated that Rafael did sell Derby to a far east customer (and I believe was a reference to integrating with F5s. Brazilian AF is doing the same F5 upgrade and have Derby as their BVR missiles). As you know ST is involved in the Brazilian F5 upgrade with IAI. One interesting thing though, from the same Asia Pacific Defence journal, the article also pointed that RSAF is wired for AMRAAMs. Hmmm.... Smile

As to stir up more dicussion, what if RSAF opt for Rafales and purchase Micas for them? Then they would have at least 2 different BVRs missiles, and possibly 3 (Derby). Anyway, it is no uncommon for RSAF to have different types of missiles of the same class, say for WVR ones for examples, they use up to 3 different variants of AIM-9, with the -P4, S, and J version. Now, they have the Python 4. I read that the J version has been decommission. Perhaps DSO should reverse engineer all the ex -J version see if they can learn technical know how, ie. IR seeker and rocket technologies... Smile just a thought !!!

YourFather SG

Reverse engineer the J version? Hmmm, not really worth the while, IMHO. The technology is dated, and our (limited) resources can be channeled for other bigger-payoff projects.
Also, how much is a 1 yr subscription of the ADJ? Right now, my info mainly comes from AWS&T. Would be great if Joe would get the ADJ :-)
1 thing I'd like to know. What is the SAM inventory of the Malaysians? AFAIK, they have the Starburst, and I think the Crotales. Anybody know if they got any others?
The Starburst is an interesting SAM,IMO. I've always wondered why they made its warhead consist of 3 KE darts. Why not make the warhead a conventional blast-fragmentation type instead?

Shotgun SG

The 3 KE darts are supposed to act like APFSDS rounds I guess. Super high velocity, and hopefully causing massive damage.

YourFather SG

small update for U guys:

First International E-2C Users Conference Held

(Source : Northrop Grumman; issued March 7, 2002)

BETHPAGE, N.Y. --- E-2C Hawkeye operators from six nations gathered for the first time this week to share operational experiences and learn about future development plans for this airborne early warning aircraft built by Northrop Grumman Corporation's Integrated Systems sector.

The first Hawkeye Users Conference was hosted by Integrated Systems, the U.S. Navy's Naval Air Systems Command and the Hawkeye Industry Team. Approximately 120 representatives of the U.S. and French navies, the Egyptian, Singaporean and Taiwanese air forces and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force participated in the four-day conference, which ended March 7. The conference took place in San Diego, Calif., and included briefings on all aspects of Hawkeye operations and support, including new capabilities being planned.

"The E-2C Hawkeye will be serving our nations for a long, long time," said Capt. Lee Lilly, the U.S. Navy's Hawkeye program manager. "The U.S. Navy has a detailed roadmap for Hawkeye system development through the new Radar Modernization Program. We didn't have a forum to communicate that roadmap to our partners until now. From my viewpoint we accomplished our mission and more this week."

"The Hawkeye is a powerful network-centric warfare system with a user community that spans the globe. It was only logical that we integrate the community of program managers, manufacturers, operators and maintainers into a living, breathing network," said John E. Michaelsen, Airborne Early Warning Integrated Product Team vice president for Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems. "This first gathering focused years of experience and the range of working environments. We learned much from each other."

In addition to representatives from user nations, members of the Hawkeye Industry Team also participated. The team includes Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems, Syracuse, N.Y.; Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, Baltimore, Md.; Raytheon Company, El Segundo, Calif.; BAE Systems, (formerly Hazeltine), Greenlawn, N.Y.; and L-3 Communications Randtron Antenna Systems, Menlo Park, Calif.

« Previous Page Next Page »