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...

southpark2000 SG

Interesting comments about composites.....anyone got info on Rafale M (Marine version)'s performance out at sea?

I reckon if the Rafale M can survive a sea deployment, it can survive a tropical environment....

Southpark
The Dude

LazerLordz SG

Anyone here knows how well the Eagle’s airframe can withstand the tropical air and moisture as compared to the Rafale M?I believe Eagles were stationed in Guam and Diego Garcia before, therefore are they easier to tropicalise?

Old Bird SG

Very little composites used on the F15s.

Plain old metal bird. Plain old problems. Nothing a patch repair or stop drill cannot resolve. No need to mess with hazardous chemicals, vapours or materails.

The fallout that is the byproduct of burning composites are sometimes extremely dangerous when inhaled. Stay far away when expoxy graphite composites are burning, its ashes when inhaled will probably kill you.

Composites are the in thing when it comes to weight savings. The use of composites is very evident in the F1 cars. And look at their brake discs, lightweight carbon fibre. But one knock, and it all goes to pieces. Composites tend to be lightweight, brittle but extremely strong as strong as metal sometimes like kevlar for example.

Most of the time patch repairs are not recommended and normally the damaged part is changed out as one whole piece so as not to compromise the strenght of the entire assembly. Can be quite an expensive affair.

The trouble is composites are relatively new and so it is not fully developed yet. The problem of moisture entrapment has always been the Archilles heel of this new technology. Maybe in a few years time they may come out with a winner.

Viper52 SG

You did mention "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Well, you've just emphasized your point.

True, moisture absorption is a serious problem in composites, and that is already a well documented fact. But then again, the world of composites is vast, and while certain types of composites do absorb moisture rapidly, there are other types which don't. We don't know exactly what kind composites go into the aircraft, so to make a sweeping statement like, "Composites absorb moisture, this region is humid, so composite aircraft = bad" is plain wrong.

The RSAF and SIA have had plenty of experience operating aircraft with composite compenents, the S.211, F-16 and even our helicopters use composites in many areas, and SIA's B777s and A340s have no shortage of composites in their makeup as well, so don't put it like it is the first time aerospace composites are being introduced in aircraft based in our country. so its the first time Singapore is looking at aircraft with that much composite components in them, but then its not like our operators and maintainers don't have experience with such materials.

Lastly, I don't think the assessment team needs us to tell them what to look out for.

Jwcook, thanks for the links. I believe all 3 contenders have their strong plus points and their own minus points, so I will not rubbish any of them like some of the other posters, but based on capabilities AND asthetics I have to disagree with you and go for the Rafale. Laughing

Old Bird SG

Fully agreed, Viper52,
Very true indeed, a little knowledge IS a dangerous thing.

sbst275 SG

Correct, F15 has been tested in Singapore as US sends F15E to PLAB to exercise, it is very suitable. Composite is a real big prob, its reliability, strength, performance matter alot

Rafale and EF2000 may not survive well, who knows as EF2000 has lots of prob already when flying to Singapore (From above article)

Viper52 SG

Yup, and it often manifests itself in skirting issues, flogging of dead horses and failure to rebut points. Laughing

Say, Old Bird, any plans to rebut my rebuttal of your points? You keep bringing up new points that I rebut, but we never seem of have a proper debate after you clam up subsequently over the original point you make. Mr. Green

Viper52 SG

Is there an echo here? Or is it a parrot? Mr. Green

sbst275 SG

Very Happy

BRW Tropical weather and carrier climate are different as the planes can be kept underneath the runway

Viper52 SG

Once again, another post highlighting your ignorance. Keep up at it my friend, comic relief is always welcome Rolling Eyes

sbst275 SG

I'm not ignorant

You heard of elevators on aircraft carriers? Read up, the planes are parked and maintained underneath lah

There is no way (Except for about 15) that planes can be parked at the deck as no plane is supposed to be there during operational

Viper52 SG

You're the one that needs to read up my boy.

The size of today's planes means not all of them can be parked into the hangar, even with folding wings. Thats why carriers today have tie down ports on the flight deck to secure aircraft.

And even if they are parked in hangars, the ocean air will affect everything without proper acclimatising.

Please, stop making a fool of yourself lah. Laughing

sbst275 SG

That I know, however, pls planes are still parked in the hangar, very planes can park at the deck during operations. You mean planes can park at the take off and landing lane or the elevators when there is operations? I have a friend who knows of the US Naval carriers and how it works and don't call ppl Parrots or what, it's very rude even in forums. Next time, I will just ignore this person....

Viper52 SG

Originally posted by Silat:
Hi, I try to provide some things I know, to get a better impression of the three contenders.

(1) The Eagles that took part in Cope India 2004 were from Elmendorf, Alaska, but they where not equipped with the APG-63(V3). On the other side, the Indians had "only" Sukhoi 30 [b]MK. The newest variant, Su-30 MKI was not involved. Further more, the Indians had their Flankers only armed with AA-10 Alamo's, not R-77. The outcome is of course great for both sides. The Air Force can now justify the Raptor and the Indians the investment in the Flanker.
(2) The Typhoon is able to fly in every weather. There were some things mixed up. Since Typhoon is pretty new, it was not cleared for it. This means not it is unable to do so. It was a simple act of burocracy. It had to get verified by all 4 nations involved as well as the NETMA.
(3)I would like to point you at something: While the Typhoon has more internal fuel, the Rafale has at the moment the advantage of larger external tanks. (2000l compared to 1000l of the Typhoon) The Eagle has the largest maximum range, while Typhoon is the only contender able to supercruise. Maybe someone with more insight in some stats could provide which AC has the largest range at M 1,2. Wink
(4)Typhoon is compatible to European AND American weapons.
(5)The Eagles airframe is the most prooven, but it's weapons system is pretty new, the same for it's EW-suite.
(6)The French were able to proove that the EW-suite of the M2k was superior to other NATO aircraft in joint exercises. The Typhoon is the only one that provides already a towed decoy.
(7)The Eagle is at the end of it's service life, while major upgrades for Typhoon and Rafale are already underway or planned for the future. A hidden plus for the Eagle is the possibility of Israelian upgrades. BUT F-15I and the proposed F-15T are partly different aircraft avionics wise, so there is a big question mark behind compatibility with Israelian systems...[/b]

Great points Silat1, its good to see some unbiased points expressed by QNH1011 and you here. Nice change from all that biased bashing of some contenders by some other posters here.

Anyway, the aircraft which took part in Cope India were from the 19 Fighter Sqn, 3rd Wing from Elmendorf Alaska. They deployed to India after a Commando Sling in Singapore. And they are the ones in the with the APG-63(V)2 AESA. While the radar being offered to Singapore is the improved (V)3, the improvements are mainly reliability-focused, and not capabilities-based. More info on the APG-63(V)2

southpark2000 SG

Errrm.....planes do get a lot of stress flying up in the cold frigid thin air above....

Hence, composites or not, they need to be able to withstand variations in temperature, humidity.

Wat's good is a Eurofighter in wet wet wet England? Wink

Ditto for French Rafale? Especially on the carriers?

Dun think all three manufacturers build a multi / swing / omni - role planes that melt in water?

Wink

Viper52 SG

Of course they can't park on deck during ops. But you put if as if the entire airwing can be parked in the hangar which

1) They can't, so a portion of the airwing has to be parked outside where there are no flight ops, and
2) Even if they can, the corrosive and moisture heavy sea air will still affect the aircraft in the hangar.

So, back to your original point, there is no difference between the Rafale operating in the tropics (Singapore) and on carriers. If anything, the carrier is a more demanding environment on an aircraft.

You've a friend of knows of US carriers? Well, I have seen the insides of 3, as a guest of the US Navy. But then I'm not interested in a "My gun is bigger than your gun contest", I'd prefer to discuss facts.

Well, what do you call your repeating of points which have already been rebutted, of which you cannot even do accurately? Rolling Eyes

Ignore me? Be my guest, I'll continue to rebut what I perceive to be factual errors, from you or anyone else. I'd prefer not to make things personal here.

Viper52 SG

Well, according to some poster(s) here, you'd think that the Typhoon and Rafale are good for nothing except looking pretty at airshows. A rather hasty judgement considering these same poster(s) admitted never being close to either one before. And the rest of us are supposed to be "unqualified" and "Playstation Test Pilots" Laughing

Composites are indeed poorer than metals in impact, but in terms of strength to weight ratio superior in almost all other mechanical properties, particularly in compression.

Viper52 SG

--------- Double post edited --------

Old Bird SG

Nah.... who can debate with you Viper52? You so well read lke scholar.

You are the leading authority on this thread. I not so knowledegable like you.
I just an aircraft mechanic only. I use my hands to work.

The points I bring up are only from what I know and have encountered in the course of my work, just speaking from my limited experience only.

How to debate with aviation engineers like you??

But if you think this thread is too high tech for a lowly mechanic to post then I don't post. I don't know how to rebut or debate with people, I just repair aircraft only.

southpark2000 SG

Hmmm.....come to think of it, would it be a safer option that RSAF chooses the Rafale M (Marine) and opposed to the C (Air Force) versions (assuming of course its outperforms against the other two NGF contenders)?

The M is more sturdy, given that it is strengthened for carrier ops. Not sure if it was necessary to navalise the electronics though...

The M is heavier though (560kg more) and has one less hardpoint....and more expensive too compared to the B versions

« Previous Page Next Page »