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

A direct face-off between the Rafale and F-15 is a definite possibility, and would be interesting which way it will go it transpires. It might be a pointer that the RoKAF evaluation on a purely military standpoint found the Rafale as the better aircraft, but after politics was factored in, the F-15 won out.

Either way, I'm not writing the Typhoon out, although if the news is true, its a definite setback.

Viking1 SG

A Su-30 will always have a harder time detecting a low-level flying target that a target that is "head-on".

As for Jernas, I agree it's a deterrent against low-level flying even though it would be interesting to know at what range exactly can a Jernas detect a Rafale or a F-15 flying at 50m above the ground. A lot of parameters here... hard to tell but what is sure is that there are always some holes for low-level flying aircrafts if you don't have a couple of E-3. Hell, even countries with E-3 like France or UK, which also happen to have a very dense and multi-layered SAM system (Rapier and Crotale NG) feel the need to purchase decicated gap-fillers like Ericsson GIRAFFE (Which I think Singapore also acquired).

Cheers,

Joe Black SG

Problem with AEWs like Hawkeyes and AWACS is that they use a rotating radar, they can at best scan 360 degree in every 6 seconds or more. Phased array like Phalcon and Wedgetails do not have this problem. Anyway, air defense system is foolproof, as evidence in the most recent Iraq war where the Patriot couldn't tell friends from foe and planes from missiles.

BTW, there are many version of the GIRAFFE. I think the one used by the Air Defense guys are bought in the 80s. The 90s version are a lot more advanced and have better detection range. Furthermore, I think SADA also has the P-STAR which I presume is used in conjunction with the various Manpads like Igla and Mistral.

Back to the NGF issue....

looks like we all concur that Rafale might have a technical edge over the Eagles. Now, will see if technical edge will prevail over political decision.... (just like I reckon the ADF should have gotten Leo2A6 instead of M1A1)

kanzer SG

just to disgress a bit.....maybe we should also get these M1A1s and store them in rockhampton.....

wd1 SG

just visualise - u're watching a fighter screaming at 0.8 mach 50m from the ground go right past you. ZOOM! u turn ur head and its gone. same goes for the JERNAS battery - it has precious few seconds with the incoming fighter in its field of view. very very difficult to get a lockon at all.

but as viper says, why not stay out of range of the SHORADS altogether by just flying high?

anyway to get back to the topic... i noticed sth. we're looking for a Next Generation Fighter. but the F-15 first flew in 1972, 2 years before the F-16 which flew in 1974. in that sense F-15's a Present or even Previous Generation Fighter! older even than the F-16.

of course we know that F-15T will have new engines, avionics, weapons and all, and is still superior to the Eurocanards in terms of load-carrying ability and range. but still an old design...

superspitfire SG

an old but proven design...the F-15K and the F-15T presents a new breed of the Strike Eagle, which derives from the standard F-15E and is built on the needs and specifications of the purchasing countries. Though the F-15's numbers will decrease in the next few years, with the phasing in of the F/A-22, the Strike Eagle variants will still be around for deep strike missions and maybe, as stand-in for the JSF, should delays to production do happens. In short, you can consider the F-15T a next generation Eagle...

wombat SG

Think you abit confused about the numbers. F-22 is the Raptor. I don't think it has the /A behind, as it is designed as a air superiority fighter. They are supposed to work on a FB-22, supposingly a stretched bomber/attack version. F-35 is the JSF, somewhat scaled down version of the F-22.

I don't classify the F-15T as a next generation fighter. To me, it classifies as a 4th generation, as it does not include elements of stealth.... Rafale is what I consider 5th generation.

Our F-16 block 52+ is customised and built to our exact needs, but I don't think it qualifies as a next generation plane. So similarly....a customised F-15, don't really qualify. Too bad the LAVI is scrapped, otherwise it shall be an interesting entry in the selection process. Mr. Green

duotiga83 SG

just a correction on raptor designation...is confirm redesignate as F/A-22 check from the website http://www.lmtas.com

btw our blk 52+ has gone 1st flight Wink

Fairyland SG

After reading the posts, I'm still not getting a clear objective for this so-called NGF tender. Question But here's my understanding so far: Laughing

1) Publicly it's suppose to be an A4 replacement more like numbers
2) But it's really a new deep(with strategic reach) strike platform
3) A JSF fallback plan likely to go on till 2020
4) A vehicle for technology transfer - AESA targetted

Have I left anything out? Which one of the above has the highest priority?

Because NGF is going on 2020, there's some serious concerns on the technology on board being the latest with potential for further upgrading.

I think deep strike missions will be unmanned (cruise missiles) by 2020 and NGF with all the technology maybe irrelevant by then.

JDAM production line I read somewhere only requires less than 10 ppl to run. As a result along with a sizeable demand unit costs has come down significantly. If I recall maybe a couple of thousand US dollars.

I think the same will be true for all smart weapons.

1st strikes usually targets 'fixed' targets.....

It could be by 2020 all you need is a satcom and a pair of lat/longs.

Viking1 SG

I really question the need for Singapore to have a plane with the load capacity and the range of the F15. I mean, a Rafale can already take 9t of ordinance and its range is really more than decent. Remember that going for a heavy plane like a F15 will mean higher maintenance costs.

Fairyland SG

For payload/range, more is always better and it's never enough.

F-15T, even though the heaviest of all contenders, at least has data to indicate it is approx 30% more to operate over an F-16C unit.

I can see the technical superiority of Rafale on paper. But I don't think Rafale is cheaper to operate.........alot of new systems on board Rafale with little clue on their operational reliability and MTBF.

Maybe if RSAF takes alot longer(another 5 years) to evaluate the contenders, this question will have a clearer answer.

MushyMaro SG

den i think we cancel the NGF deal... and change to buying ARROW 2
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/arrow2/index.html

cavsg SG

there is always a thing call foreign military sales assistance. the F-15 is large in numbers, the american aviation industry is different from the rest of world. there are alot of companies always fighting to get contract to manufacture aircraft parts. in fact the market is so huge, there was once the rsaf uh fleet was grounded becos in america, they found parts that were not from certified companies, rsaf looked thru its fleet to ensure such parts did not come to us.

cavsg SG

tell the govt, changed it to next generation bomber.

Fairyland SG

I think Mindef carries much more weight here....judging by the Minister's speech last night. Laughing

Seems defense of Singapore relies a whole lot on maintaining a technological edge ....... sigh. Sad

Maybe that's why B1-B is in AA2004? Mr. Green

Viking1 SG

But the downsides are quite significant like for example the operating costs, the RCS, the maneuvrability.... so the question is really whether Singapore needs a plane of the size and weight of the F15. My guess is that they don't need that big of a plane, otherwise why is the Midef considering Rafale and Typhoon and not Su-30 ? The thing is, Singapore wants a twin-engine plane and M'sia is getting the F-18E, therefore the only American product that can be proposed if the F-15.

I can see the technical superiority of Rafale on paper. But I don't think Rafale is cheaper to operate.........alot of new systems on board Rafale with little clue on their operational reliability and MTBF.

If the Rafale or Typhoon don't turn out to be significantly cheaper to operate than F-15 then really Dassault, EADS and BAe have totally screwed-up. I don't think so...

Cost of spares for the Rafale could be expensive because of the small production numbers, but soon the F15 will not be produced anymore. What impact on the cost of spares ?

Viking1 SG

double-post deleted Mr. Green

Viking1 SG

sorry for the double-post

Viper52 SG

Viking1 you can remove the double post by editing the 2nd post and removing all the contents. Saves the other users bandwidth and time. Thanks! Smile

Viking1 SG

I tried that but does not work, it says there has to be some text in order to post the changes Embarassed

« Previous Page Next Page »