Singapore's Next Generation Fighter

last SG · 2004-03-08T17:15:05+00:00

Agree that the ILS alone would swing it all to the F-15E. Even politically it maybe a better decision though the benefits would not be as great as South Kore...

LazerLordz SG

Cool it fellas.Viper52, perhaps you could give up mentioning the "deceased mare" and let others who may not have arrived from the beginning of this thread to put forward what they have to say or think.No doubt, as moderator, you may feel that there ain't any progress in the discussion.But we are all here to learn more aren't we?Yepp, and Old Bird, no one is saying you are in the wrong.Maybe you can try to refrain from repeating other points raised by fellow posters.I do find your interest in the P-51 Mustang unique as many do not really follow the older fighters , especially those of the WW2 era.Okies then.Let's all continue our sojourn for greater knowledge. Smile

Viper52 SG

Well now, you referred to those who posted as "armchair engineers and Playstation test pilots" and challenged for qualifications, so I gave you mine. Simple as that. You set the tone in the way you've asked for qualifications.

"Little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Agree 100%. Particularly when one sees things from one point of view while swiftly dismissing others as "gimmicks"

Well of course we would modify the NGF we buy, that is always something the posters here have said. By that same reasoning, us buying Rafales and Typhoons would also see us modifying them. And as discussed, without the export licensing and tech transfer issues the Americans constantly put us under.

Hmmm...what then would you call your scenario of "souping up" the P-51 into something it was totally not designed for?

Shouting everyone down? Oh dear...so I post my views without any kid gloves. Thats shouting down? As for getting personal, giving an opinion about an idea is a different ball game from attacking an individual.

LazerLordz SG

Good point. Cool

Viper52 SG

LazerLordz, one does not have to start from Page 1 to see some of the same points on the F-15 repeated ad nauseum.

And certain posters seem to have a knack for doing that, even though he himself have repeated those points 5 pages back, get rebutted, fall silent and then come back 5 pages later to repeat the same points again.

NathanG5 SG

are u toking abt yourself or just plain hypocrite?

look at your previous post...u were practically asking everyone to shutup in that post...so if u want others to entitled u your opinion..1st u must accept other opinion too...its not a one way thing..it goes both way...old bird indeed..EQ dying on you eh?
if u cant take the heat..go somewhere else then...

duotiga83 SG

Well ....we are arguing in circles............points are out in the previous pgs... Rolling Eyes

LazerLordz SG

True.Well, perhaps I stuck my nose in too far. Embarassed

Viper52 SG

Back to BVR engagements, the French AF’s Mirage 2000-5s trashed all comers from NATO in an BVR engagement exercise a few years back. This with an RDY set which, while impressive, is not as advanced as what is going to be fitted into Rafale F2s. I wouldn’t be too sure about the F-15 ruling the roost in BVR.

duotiga83 SG

a note to be taken: Americans are no longer a so call dominion industry...the EU and Russian are catching up...don't be surprise in near future China also......

LazerLordz SG

Now, would acceleration,high apogee turns and a steep angle of attack combination be one of the factors we need to look into before we select our next aircraft?

duotiga83 SG

how about with weapons integrations?

LazerLordz SG

Yep.That would be interesting.Wonder whether Elbit or Rafael Armaments will get to play with our fighters again?I heard that our EW suite on the Viper Ds may have certain incompatibilities with the rest of the software onboard.How true is this?

Viper52 SG

What? It has a tendency to jam the other systems on the aircraft? Laughing

I'm not too sure if its true (and even if I knew it was, I wouldn't say it here), but *IF* it is, then it could be one of the potential pitfalls of getting 3rd party upgrades without 1st party support. Which is why I very leery about buying American, and getting Israeli help without American support should they falter in tech transfer.

LazerLordz SG

I must say that barring the teething problems, it would still make a lethal combination.American hardware with Israeli/Singaporean software upgrade.After all, Israel’s own jets are doing quite well.Perhaps all these bugs need a bit of ironing out.

leong262000 SG

did the f-15I shot down any middle east a/c,or engage with migs ,suks???

hopefully our ngf is a rafale Rolling Eyes

southpark2000 SG

Errm, if it is a bridge (i.e., temporary stop-gap measure), then we shld be getting the F-16s. I would therefore submit that this is more than a bridge, and the plane should last more than a temp bridge, especially if the JSF is delayed or cancelled.

Europlanes' air-toair refuelling are compatibile with US. No need to "build from scratch".

The Rafale is not as risky - it has been in operations since 1999 and has been deployed in Operating Enduring Freedom (Afghan). The Marine F1 version completed Opeval recently.

It is a misnomer that RSAF is risk averse. I don't have the stats with me here, but SG bot their 1st F-16 in less than a decade it was produced....(someone help me here)

There is equal risk of Eagle going obsolescence as well.

southpark2000 SG

1. AIM-120s....how many have we got on hand?

Divide them by the no. of F-16s we have and let's see if we have enuf or not 1st.....(someone help!!! - i dun have access to the statistics here).

2. I am not sure if we are able to purchase more of them....given US stance to "balance" the region

3. From 1 and 2, we can deduce that we want to get our hands on more BVR missiles, i.e., from elsewhere (Derbys, MICAs, METEORs eventually?)...

Example:
I know from my prev. post we bot some 400 Pythons (Israel WBR missiles). We know that it is integrated with F-16s. We also know that we have some 60 F-16s.

Hence 400 / 60 = 6.667 missiles per plane. Assuming they carry 4 in a mission (2 at the wingtips, 2 on outer pylons), it implies that the stock can last only 1.2 missions or thereabout.....

Regards

Old Bird SG

A logically thought out post here by kingkhong79 without the need to leverage on the use of technology and electronic gizmos jargon to substantiate the stand.

There is a lot of difference between "nice to have" and "need to have".
In the current economic climate and the Singaporean kiasuism of wanting everything cheap and good....... the choice seems quite clear.

Old Bird SG

No worries LazerLordz, just as much as some would consider the F15 a dead mare, I consider the 2 new jets just over rated new kids on the block and still wet behind the ears. So, I tend to repeat other points raised by fellow posters? But that is because we share the same views that's all, sorry.

And yes, I am very interested in the old war birds, especially the Mustang. It was the first WW2 aircraft to be fitted with a bubble canopy, a design that was copied onto the F16 who had their canopies built by Texstar and Serracin.
I am very interested in the airframe design evolution of fighter aircraft from WW2 till the present day.

The current trend is going back to the delta shaped wings which are extremely good lift generators but are extremely stable platforms and therefore difficult to pitch up or down, hence forward canards.

A highly agile aircraft, like the F16 is basically totally unstable due to its centre of gravity is rearset hence the need to use computers to fly it, and I am sure you guys already know about this.

sbst275 SG

What?

FYI an F15E cost US$ 31.1million
EF2000 cost Euro$80 million (US$96 million)
F35: US$38 million

« Previous Page Next Page »