Malaysia weighs Boeing, Sukhoi bids for next fighter deal

last SG · 2008-01-03T14:01:06+00:00

Well, its also hard to deny that Mr Beazely has criticized the Labor Party's defense purchases before. IMO, its more politics than meets the eye. As for M'si...

Shotgun SG

Will they be the first to land Matstronauts on the Sun? Stay tuned!

ferryman2393 SG

According to some...it's not due to lack of armament but the fighters' on board computer can't be programmed for offensive usage.

Even ex-PM Mahathir once admit this.

Will our Malaysian friends care to elaborate more about this.

i've offered my explanation before in other threads.

from what i gathered its the inability of the a/craft to register Western made a/craft as bogeys. there was an explanation from the RAAF abt this peculiarity with their hornets but they managed to sidetracked it due to their in-house capability which i reckon does not pleased uncle sam.

all this arises from the tomcats uncle sam sold to iran during the shah's reign where it was used to wallop saddam hussein's airforce during khomeini's reign. they learnt their lessons thereon. or so it seemed. apparently, they don't want future weapons they sold to be used against them. the drawback to potential buyer was that it couldn't be used not only against uncle sam. but against uncle sam allies as well. or uncle sam does not wish his allies to grab each others' throats.

the turkish f16s were up against ground targets for which they should not have any problem. but try pitting them up against the greeks' western a/craft. see how it'd go.

makes sense or not?

fvwerra SG

Thanks for the explanation.

But does this mean RSAF Vipers can't engage RMAF Hornets?

The Saudis F-15Cs shot down 2 Iranian F-4s in the 80s. Why are the
Saudi's F-15 are not affected?

Could be that you must be really good buddy with Uncle Sam to be
supplied with 'unrestricted' radar?

tankfanatic SG

dude he wrote ...

to wallop saddam hussein's airforce during khomeini's reign. they learnt their lessons thereon.

...it is in the 80's.

fvwerra SG

The question is can RSAF shoot down any US made planes if what Mr Ferryman said is correct.

Shotgun SG

Dude, I think you may need to substantiate your claim further. A radar contact is a radar contact. There are established procedures for getting locked by friendly aircraft, aka "Buddy Spike" and you are telling me that Western Aircraft cannot lock on Western aircraft?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qewC5SR2sdM
Here, a Turkish F-16 locks on to the Greek F-16 at close range. He cycles through the various radar modes, from boresight, to vertical scan and was able to spike the Greek F-16 on multiple occasions.

I've yet to see evidences of your claim.

And in all fairness, if there is a grain of truth in ur claim, the good old sidewinder is still capable of locking on to ANY target's Infra-red signature.

tankfanatic SG

can.....surely IAF have thought RSAF to lift that restriction...if any.

Shotgun SG

Its not "if any."

I highly doubt there is!

The radar doesn't know, nor recognize radar contacts. In its typical search mode, I'm not aware that it can tell apart an F-16 from an Su-27. All it sees is radar returns.

When you bug it and send into STT(Single Target Tracking) mode, an NCTR is SOMETIMES able to tell you what kinda fighter it is by looking through its intake.

This ambiguity explains why only the F-15s were cleared for BVR shots over specific corridors during the Gulf War '91 because the chances of them shooting Friendly aircraft was in fact, VERY REAL. Any other aircraft that had BVR contact had to be cleared by AWACs to for WVR shots.

Evidences of such strict SOPs does not point to any limitations of western or US-made aircraft's ability to engage its own kind.

tankfanatic SG

sooo u mean Dr M were nyanyuk and talk craap when he say those thing?

coolant SG

Wow, what is this? Black magic? But you have to figure out, how an F15J was shot down accidently by a sidewinder from another fighter, a same type F15J!

Actually what fvwerra talked about the RMAF limited offensive ability is most likely caused by monkey version F-18 exported by Yanks, some functions are locked by Uncle Sammie prior to export. Cant get what I mean? Think about one daily item, say, Nvidia manufactures the same structure graphic card chips to achieve maximum volume, but Nvidia is offering different level of Graphic cards to the market, like GF7200, GF7600, how does Nvidia do it? Very simple, they just lock some function of the same structure chip to let it become low end GF7200, those without locking, become relatively high end GF7600.

coolant SG

SHOTGUN, the radar usually accompanied with IFF probe, fighters are primarily based on IFF signals to know the targets are friendly or not. The pilot wont care the target is western made stuff or not, as long as the opposite doesnt answer his IFF signal correctly, he will be in high alert. Besides radar, there are many other sensors carried by fighters, a good ESM sensor suit can tell the remote targets radar in emitting is what type, at what mode, the sensor fusion will combine all inputs from different sensor units, to be passive or active, and present to the pilot for fire control.

Shotgun SG

COOLANT, i'm challenging the notion that western aircraft cannot lock on to western aircraft. It has NOTHING to do with IFF. What is suggested is that even if the IFF indicates a hostile contact, a radar such as the APG-68 is unable to enter STT mode to provide firing solutions for missiles BECAUSE the target in question is a western aircraft.

2ndly, IFF tells friendliesthat you are friendly. Don't you think its questionable for an aircraft system to broadcast that you are Hostile? Might as well paint bullseyes on the wings... oh wait, the RAF already does that.

Correct, RWRs are coupled with systems that are usually capable of identifying the aircraft type. PROVIDED the aircraft is emitting.

If the target is not emitting, and you are not near 0 or 180 aspect of the aircraft, its hard for the radar's NCTR to identify the target.

ferryman2393 SG

first off, i never claimed the radar could not detect western aircraft as bogeys. try to chew first before swallowing anything. LOL.....

Australia 'cracked top-secret US jet fighter codes'By Don Woolford

September 20, 2007 04:23pm

KIM Beazley has told how Australia cracked top-secret American combat aircraft codes while he was defence minister in the 1980s.

"We spied on them and we extracted the codes," Mr Beazley told Parliament during his valedictory speech today.

Mr Beazley, who was defence minister from 1984 to 1990, said that when he took over the job he soon learned that the radar on Australia's Hornets could not identify most potentially hostile aircraft in the region.

In other words, Australia's frontline fighter could not shoot down enemies in the region.

Mr Beazley said he was greatly tempted to "belt" the Liberals with this and lay to rest their claim to be best at managing defence.

"I shut up, I said nothing," Mr Beazley said.

"I went to the US and for five years, up hill and down dale, with one knock-down, drag-out after another, with Cap Weinberger, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, I tried to get the codes of that blasted radar out of them.

"In the end we spied on them and we extracted the codes ourselves and we got another radar that could identify (enemy planes).

Mr Beazley said the Americans were Australia's most important ally.

"But they are a bunch of people you have to have a fight with every now and then to get what you actually need out of them," he said.

Mr Beazley said that the story of getting the Hornet codes was well known within Defence, but not beyond it.

He said the problem was that the old codes related to Warsaw Pact aircraft, rather than ones in Australia's region.

The Americans kept saying they'd provide the codes, but never did.

"So we tried to crack the codes so we could enhance them," Mr Beazley said.

"And we made a lot of progress."

Mr Beazley said the Americans knew what the Australians were doing and were intrigued by the progress they made.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22451478-2,00.html

so i asked again, makes sense or not?

second question, could the RSAF F16s (and soon to be PR F15SG) be able to register RMAF's F/18s as bogeys?

datafuser SG

If the characteristics of the Malaysian Hornet radar is included in the 'threat library' of radar warning receivers fitted on the Singaporean fighters, yes the RSAF fighters will be able to identify the Malaysian fighters as bogeys.

I am not sure whether the RSAF fighters can identify aircraft non-cooperatively.

Cheers,
Sunho

ferryman2393 SG

chew on these:

So far, the U.S. has protected its most sensitive technology with so-called "black boxes," physical or electronic barriers to reverse engineering. But U.S. allies are now demanding that this practice be stopped. For example, Israel and Turkey want U.S. companies to transfer software the fire-control radar source codes in order to win major attack helicopter contracts. Germany has also threatened to pull out of joint development of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) because of the black boxes around U.S. technology.

So far, the Pentagon has resisted succumbing to this blackmail, but signs point to a reversal in policy. Recent reports state that Germany will gain access to the MEADS "black box" technology , and Israel is confident that it will be granted the source codes it requested. Once the precedent is set, it will be difficult to resist demands from other allies. Technology transfer at this level will not only enable states to incorporate U.S. technology into their exported arms, but also to adapt their own equipment in a way which may threaten U.S. interests. For example, source codes for fighter aircraft radars allow the user to change the pre-set friend or foe designator.

"source codes for fighter aircraft radars allow the user to change the pre-set friend or foe designator". what does this mean? how would they know which one will be friend today and foe tomorrow?

http://www.fas.org/faspir/v53n2a.htm

ferryman2393 SG

and could this be one of the weight put by RTAF on its choice of GRIPEN?

Second, the aircraft was suitable for coastal defence of the southern shores. Third, the Swedish supplier agreed to a technology transfer by releasing the source code data of the aircraft and weaponry that would enable the Air Force to further develop its aviation capability.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/10/17/politics/politics_30052838.php

Thailand has traditionally purchase fighters from the United States and suggested the armed forces might be better off with buying more F-16.

Chalit said the time consuming process was the main reason why he ruled out the F-16s and that Gripen fighters were designed to counter Russian jets deployed in the region.

"Aircraft purchase is very complicated, sometimes a supplier cannot sell or refuse the weaponry needed, even if you have the money, and it is not wise to deploy aircraft similar to your neighbours," he said.

Negotiations for F-16s would take at least four years, making it impossible for deployment in time for decommissioned F-5 fighters, he added.

"not wise to deploy aircraft similar to your neighbours". meaning its inability to register a/craft from the same host nation as bogeys? in this case SU30.

datafuser SG

In early 1999, one of the Ethiopian Su-27s piloted by Russian mercenaries had no problem in shooting down one Eritrean MiG-29 flown by an Ukrainian pilot with a R-73 IR-guided missile.

IIRC, in one incident both sides fired seven R-27 radar-guided air-to-air missiles at each other but none found the mark.

Below is from a newsgroup post eight years ago.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: Shade
Date: 2000/01/26
Subject: Re: Su-27 question

Besides taking out four Eritrean MiG-29s (plus one written off due to damage recieved from a AAM) Ethiopian Su-27s also carried out many strike missions against the Eritrean ground forces. While MiG-23s carried most of the bombing missions i think the Su-27 was used in a more penetrative role using Air-to-ground missiles etc.

On one website (i'll try find te address) there was footage of a MiG-29 falling from the sky after it had been hit by a R-73 missile. The amateur footage was taken from the ground by a reporter traveling with the Ethiopian soldiers.

There's also footage of an Su-27 attacking some tanks. The camera work is jittery and is taken from a considerable distance (usually a mountain over-looking the area)

Interesting to note that all MiG-29s were shot down in close-quarters turning dogfights. All kills were by means of the R-73. R-27s fired by both MiGs and Su-s on various occassions failed to find their mark.

One uneventful incident occured when two Su-27s were intercepted over Eritrean airspace by four MiGs. The lead Su-27 was targeted by the MiGs which fired three R-27s head-on. The Lead evaded the missiles and then proceeded to engage all four MiGs by firing four R-27s in quick succession. The missiles missed and the MiGs left in a hurry.

Cheers,
Sunho

coolant SG

As I said in my last post, you use IFF to interrogate those bogeys, if it doesnt answer correctly, then its up to the pilot or CGI for proper action, how many times NATOs blue on blue fires are caused by the IFF failure already?

Shotgun SG

Yes correct. The IFF interrogates and awaits for a return code signal. If the other aircraft doesn't give a valid response code, then the target is a bogey.

Bogey designation does not equate to Bandit. Bogey is an unidentified, while has been identified by either electronic means or visual means to be believed as a hostile.

And finally, a friendly radar can still lock on to a friendly aircraft. Even if the IFF says its friendly. So what is suggested that Western or rather US aircraft radar is unable to target US aircraft is very questionable. If a friendly aircraft gets locked by a friendly radar, it has to report, "callsign11, buddy spike, bullseye 260(heading), 50 miles(distance)." Aircraft currently spiking on Guard VHF has to check if they've got someone locked at that location and return to Search mode to prevent friendly fire. At least, thats as far as I know goes on.

As for Blue on Blue incidents, even if theres an IFF failure, there protocols (like above) in place to prevent them. Chances are, there's a breach in protocol somewhere. Maybe trigger happy pilots? People are not supposed to go around shooting bogeys unless cleared by AWACs. A bogey could be a bandit but also could be malfunctioning aircraft returning from a sortie, (comms out, IFF out, radar out, and no way of broadcasting its identity unless with a wingman.)

coolant SG

Dont over read it, as long as your IFF is in fault when you are in the air war, you are equal to a soldier forgot his infantry password in the battlefield. See how serious the IFF failure on a fighter can cause, this is just 1 case among many more:

Tornado crew shot down after friend-or-foe system failed
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article424174.ece

WITH 60 seconds to decide whether the dot approaching at a rapid speed from 23,000ft was a friendly bomber returning from a mission over Baghdad or an incoming Iraqi missile, an American Patriot anti-aircraft battery opened fire.

The split-second decision led to one of the tragedies of the Iraq war last year: the dot was an RAF Tornado GR4, flown by Flight Lieutenants Kevin Main and David Williams who died instantly as their aircraft disintegrated in a ball of fire.

On the publication yesterday of the RAFs board of inquiry into the incident, a senior British defence source said the lives of the two men had been cut short by a terrible accident, caused by human intervention and technical failure.

After more than a year of investigation by the RAF and the US Army, it was revealed that several factors led to the disastrous friendly-fire incident on March 23 which was only the third day of coalition airstrikes on Iraq.

The American Patriot crew which had misidentified the approaching Tornado as an anti-radiation missile, was inexperienced, and had no direct communications with its battalion headquarters to seek advice about friendly aircraft in the area.

British defence sources said the American crew had not been trained specifically about the likely threat from Iraqi aircraft or missiles.

In fact, although the Iraqis launched a number of ballistic missiles at Kuwait, Iraqs air force never became engaged and there were no anti-radiation weapons fired at coalition ground systems throughout the war.

However, the fundamental flaw which played a key part in the destruction of the Tornado was that its identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system which was supposed to send coded signals to anti-aircraft batteries had failed.

Steps have now been taken to install a new IFF system to all Tornados.

In outlining the findings of the RAF board of inquiry, the senior defence official said that Flight Lieutenant Main, the pilot, and Flight Lieutenant Williams, the navigator, never knew that their IFF system had stopped working.

There should have been a warning light in the cockpit, but a power failure had scuppered what was supposed to be a crucial fail-safe system.

Believing that it was safe to start a descent from 23,000ft to return to the Kuwaiti air base at Ali al-Salem, the Tornado pilot reduced altitude rapidly.

The aircraft was about 16 miles from the Patriot missile location on the Kuwaiti/Iraqi border one minutes flying time when it received a direct hit. There was no time for either crew member to eject to safety. The defence official said that the Patriot missile crew followed a strict computerised procedure under which the signature of the approaching target was assessed to judge whether it was a coalition aircraft or a hostile missile.

But with no working IFF on board the Tornado, the Patriot computer deduced that it was an anti-radiation missile, and the target was attacked.

The board of inquiry said the criteria programmed into the Patriot computer were based on the many anti-radiation missiles available worldwide and were, therefore, very broad.

The board considered that the criteria should have been much tauter, based on the known threat from Iraq.

It also concluded that the US rules of engagement covering hostile anti-radiation missiles were not robust enough to prevent a friendly aircraft being classified as an anti-radiation missile.

« Previous Page Next Page »