Yes, but because the USAF knows perfectly from experience that
if we don't get the KC-135s from them, we'll get boom refuelers
from someone else. Be it Israel, Iran or anyone else. As they have
shown, if they can deny us the capability, they will. At the drop
of a hat
Thats because we had a VERY good alternative waiting in the
Eurocopter Tiger. Even so, I've heard that the Longbow radars might
be kept in US territory until a "military threat against Singapore
is imminent" (again)
To answer your questions; Yes, but not all we wanted. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Your answer (or shall we say, assumption) only shows how much
you know about the Peace Carvin program. There are a lot on the C/D
Vipers we have that came from the Israelis, who were the ones who
gave us the source codes to integrate a whole bunch of goodies onto
the aircraft, which I won't go into detail but most of the military
nuts here(save for you) already know about.
Wrong, wrong, partially right and wrong. DSTA already has said
tech transfer might make of break this fighter deal. We don't need
the new fighter now, the last A-4s are due to go in 2007. Meanwhile
F-15 deliveries to RoK start in mid-'06. You sure Boeing St Louis
can complete the 40 and get down to ours then? Or do you think your
good Yankee friends will shaft the Koreans in favour of our
needs?
Rafale F1 is already in production and has combat missions over
Afghanistan. Rafale F2 will start deliveries later this year. F3 is
right on schedule. As for the French AF, their Rafale requirements
are staggered to ease fiscal pressures and the Dassault production
facilities are well-geared to fulfil more orders in between those
of the French AF.
The point is only applicable to the Typhoon, which I have stated
before. Nothing new. Then again, production aircraft are rolling
off the lines.
The F-15 is now. But we need something for the FUTURE.
When will the RSAF get its first delivery if it chooses the F-15?
With the Korean order in mind.
Do you know that for sure, or did you hear that from someone, or
(heaven forbid) come up with that one yourself? After all, you've
already mis-represented a lot of facts already.
Is that so bad? Troubleshooting source codes will represent a
good learning experience for our software engineers while work on
the radars will give our engineers and people first hand experience
of how that works FROM THE GROUND UP. As I've said before,
Singapore is looking to be more than an end-user of hardware, we
want to learn how to upgrade, improve, modify and eventually even
build and design our own stuff. In other words, self-reliance. With
the Americans always looking to sell things with enough strings
attached to ensure their end-users end up in knots most of the time
without their help, this already represents a gulf in expectations
of both parties.
Again, deluded assumptions from you without any consideration of
past events. The Yanks have integrated everything they need for
THEMSELVES. Which is fine and good FOR THEM. But what they have
which we want from them, they might not want to sell us. And what
we want that we can get from 3rd parties, how are we going to
integrate these 3rd party equipment without the source codes? What
then?
Again, these are events with precedents in the Singapore
context.
