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...

Viper52 SG

Viking1, a first rate opponent would have little trouble picking off low flying aircraft with advanced SAM/AAA systems. That was the reason why the USAF was against low-level attacks with F-111s should war break out in central Europe against the Warsaw Pact. The expected loss rate would be prohibitive, and they focused on precision strike from medium attitude, while focusing development on long-range standoff weapons, the results of which were are seeing today.

Incidentally, the USAF realised low-level attacks was the way to go for initial surprise strikes against a less-advanced opponents. Like in Libya 1986. That was of course, until the advent of stealth (beyond the context of this discussion)

Viper52 SG

Heard similar stories about Mirage 2000/MICA against all kinds of NATO opponents like F-16MLU, F-15Cs, MiG-29s and various other NATO types

Viking1 SG

Sorry but going low does not mean you have to overfly your target. At low altitude, an AASM still has 15km of range (it is rocket-propelled) and a SCALP-EG still has some range too.

If your oponent still has an active air force, you will have to go low to bomb your targets unless your strategy is first to anihilate the oponent's airforce. Of course the US will always do that but not all airforces have what it takes to do it. Bottom line is there could very well be operational scenarii for which low-level bombing will be the best option. It would be better if your aicrafts can actually do it don't you think.

Viking1 SG

I heard that Belgian MLU usually get the upper hand against M2000C/RDI in BVR but when they go against the dash 5 then it's another story.

Viper52 SG

Hmmm...wouldn't a better alternative be using stand-off weapons (SLAM-ER, Scale/Apache/Storm Shadow, JSOW etc) to neutralise the defenses and enemy counter-air capabilities before going in with more conventional PGMs?

Going low has a multitude of problems, PGMs (LGBs/EOGBs) effective range is significantly reduced at lower altitudes. Going NOE is almost impossible to guide a LGB. Popping up to drop and guide the bomb exposes the aircraft to defenses. Staying low means you're forced to use retarded unguided bombs

Viking1 SG

Given the price of a SCALP or a SLAM-ER, I don't think anybody except maybe the US can actually hope to really cripple the opponent defense network only by using those. You would need thousands of them. I don't think anybody disagrees on the problems with low-level bombing, my point is that you may have to resort to it under certain circumstances so you better have a jet that can do the job.

Viper52 SG

Yes of course, I agree fully with that, but going low is no longer the best option, and since the context of the discussion was originally about the LANTIRN possessing a TFR while the Litening does not, I was utilising the point to illustrate why lacking a TFR is not so important today.

Cheers!

Viper52 SG

Yep, I was meaning to say that the exercises involved the French 2000-5s against the other NATO AFs.

Viking1 SG

Yup fair enough... actually I agree with you but I think that there are (at least one Mr. Green ) planes in this competition that are truly multirole and can do both and therefore it's probably a good idea. After all you are going to pay something like 50-60 million "fly-away" for those birds so I think being able to do low-level flying should be included in the "package"

Fairyland SG

Can see the pros and cons here. Good thread!

I still say Typhoon is a long ways off. This international programme is not going to be easy to handle and will take too much time.

Let's wait and see.........

If indeed the F-15 does win.......can I then take it that Singapore has bowed to US pressure? Very Happy

How sure are we that the Rafale package won't come with any conditions attached......the ILS should scare the hell out of anyone I'm sure.

cavsg SG

slam-er has just been sold to RoKAF for its F-15K

5.56 SG

which of shortlisted aircraft is the most technologically advance? can we buy shadow/scalp EG, BVRAAM and integate 'em into our existing fleets if we have chosen F15? Question

superspitfire SG

To answer part of your question, i think it's not quite possible to integrate other weapons into the F-15E, provided the one we are being offered is around the same weapons configuration and technology as the USAF's. In my opinion, the F-15E is the most battle-proven among the three but in the competition, other aspects are considered as well, I'm sure somewhere in the thread they explain it but for me, its the Rafale which is the most technologically advanced, though some may disagree...

p.s. for quite a while, i was rooting for the F-15E...

wd1 SG

very interesting discussion u guys got there, viper and viking.

i'd like to point out tho that low-flying capabilities are pretty much similar between the three NGF contenders...
it is actually very possible to do low on-the-deck flying w/o TFR. the pilot just has to be much more alert and fly with the aid of FLIR input into the HUD or NVGs to help him distinguish ground from sky.
this of course means the pilot has his hands full just flying, and needs a WSO to do everything else, like weapons targeting-- but our interdictor craft will be 2-seaters anyway.

the APG-63(V)3, RBE2 and (most likely) CAPTOR will have TFR modes anyway, so whether the targeting pod includes one is more or less irrelevant. the first two especially will be able to interleave TFR with GMTI/SAR/targeting/whatever, making the podded TFR even less useful.

IMO when going against a reasonably modern AD system like malaysia's going low is still the much safer option.

Viper52 SG

On the contrary wd1, while Malaysia does indeed have a modern AD system, its confined to mainly SHORADS and VSHORADS with less emphasis on longer ranged missiles, a more reasonable tactic to deal with it is to blind the most important AD nodes (radars, command networks etc) with standoff weapons, then fly medium to high to stay out of range from the shorter ranged weapons and MANPADS.

That is, IF we're dealing with Malaysia (apologies to all Malaysians for using you as a bogeyman again)

Joe Black SG

Concur. Malaysia air defence does posses the very latest JERNAS (Rapier), thus it posses a significant threat to low flying aircrafts.

We did discuss about the using UCAV for close support or low level missions. The best thing in the near future for RSAF is to work towards UCAV for more dangerous mission like these. The scale up version of MAV-1 would be a prime candidate that can carry good sensors and small diameter precision bombs. Second options might be to convert the fleet of A4s to UCAV/drones. Wouldn't be bad to have some QA-4SU flying in front of the VIpers to attract SAMs, with the SEAD Vipers mopping up SAM radars and command and control systems.

Viking1 SG

Yes, but if Malaysia were to purchase something like the S-300PMU or even S-400 Triumph, the equation becomes quite different. And I'm not even talking about those Su30-MKI that they will get with powerfull BARS radar and the ability to loiter for quite a long time.

As for the MANPADS, I think you are a little bit overestimating the theat against a modern fighter plane. A MANPAD works either thanks to its seeker or in optical mode. At night or in foggy weather, optical mode does not work. As for the seeker, it can be jammed and it's not so difficult for modern ECM like Spectra or DASS. At 1,400 km/h of speed, the manpad will have a had time shooting down a Rafale protected by its ECM suite.

Viking1 SG

I agree that all 3 contenders can do it, even though for the Typhoon I don't think it's really been tested yet. F-15 and Rafale have the edge here.

kanzer SG

It seems that the selection is a two horse race between Rafale and F-15. Given the delays and more delays and not able to represent itself physically to the selectors, the typhoon might already self-destructed in the selection process. if what is posted earlier that they are not able to send a demostration aircraft to spore is true, then it is better for their team to pack their backs early. how can they expect to sell by just empty talk of specifications and a mock-up model? So i am afraid to say that this shortlist is a repeat of the ROKAF selection battle between the french and the yanks.

Viper52 SG

Viking1, the issue is debating which is the best way to deal with Malaysians *current* AD capabilities. As for the Su-30/BARS, I've no full specs, but I'm not figuring their look-down shoot-down capabilities are *that* poor.

Granted, MANPADS are of limited use against low-flying fast jets. But as Joe Black says, how about the other SHORADS in the MAF's inventory like JERNAS?

« Previous Page Next Page »