This is a discussion on Republic of Singapore Air Force Discussions within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by PLA2025
I mean, Singapore has close ties with China and don't the US fear that Singapore might ...
Re: Singapore looking for the JSF? Are you serious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
I mean, Singapore has close ties with China and don't the US fear that Singapore might sell or borrow one JSF to China so Chengdu or Shenyang might analyse that for copying the stealth designs and elctronical outfits?
Singapore isn't going to jeopardise continuing access to Australian acoustic warfare technology, US JSF technology, NATO mine warfare technology etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
The F-15C or E would be definetly cheaper than the Eurofighter Typhoon which costs 47 mio. Euros and is still not operational since its weapon systems (AAMs etc.) have not finished testings!
Thats only the air interception role - its already certified for strike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
But not getting the F/A-18E Super Hornet is surprising me a bit. Maybe it's too expensive for Singapore (60 mio. US$ one unit) or maybe the US are selling it only for a higher price.
Platform procurement is requirements based - considering that Singapore is highly regarded and is seen as an influence purchase - then I'm pretty confident that they had clear requirements in place. What is it that you expect the SH to do over a late model F-15 when their build reasons and thus mission requirements are somewhat different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
The J-10A has better flight dynamics than any the F-16 in service
Where has that been established or been promoted to a credible level. Comparative flight dynamics is relevant when they are used for identical missions. Comparing a mature design that has "publicly" avaiable performance data against a greenfields design that has had no foreign observors to give independant assessment is a bit of a stretch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
Many experts outside China believe that the J-10 (F-10) (around 27 mio. US$) could pose as a counterpart in the weapons trade to the F-16C and F-16D which cost around 30 - 40 mio. US$.
What sophisticated F16 buyers and existing users look like J-10 users? The immediate market will be users who aren't F-16 drivers - existing F-16 drivers are either signed up for JSF or going for Gripens. None of the existing flyers would take a retrograde step.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
Of course it depends on how the J-10A performs when entered service and taking part in coming military drills. That's a clear advantage for the F-16C and F-16D since they are combat proved which the J-10A still lacks in real battle experience.
different planes, different build philosophies, different objectives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
But therefore you could critizise the F/A-22 Raptor or the Su-35 too since both also have never been deployed in real combat yet.
No - definitely not. In the case of the F-22 and the Su-35 you have aircraft coming from companies and countries that have a demonstrated capability in building competent performance aircraft. The reason why they sell is based on past historical performance and relationships. They're indigenous aircraft from historically competitive entities. The J-10 and JF-17 are legacy platforms from the F-16 and are in essence greenfield builds.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
thanx for the replies with your feedback. But about the J-10 and F-16 role I'm not so agreeing with you because both platforms (although it is obvious that the J-10 design is a mix of a Lavi, F-16) is a light multi-role fighter like the F-16. The ratio about air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities for both planes could be estimated to 6 : 4 (although this is a raw comparisson).
The J-10 is a brandnew jet with much potential as a relatively low cost advanced fighter. It can be later re-fitted with better radars, targeting systems and more powerful engine if needed while Chengdu is developing the J-10C twin engine version (most likely a naval version for future aircraft carrier projects of the PLAN).
Gripen and JSF?
Of course the JSF is much more advanced in technology and stealth (5th gen fighter) than the J-10 (4th gen). But the Saab Gripen is not a more advanced fighter jet than the J-10. They are more in the same class with some plus and minus points for each plane.
About the F/A-22 and the Su-35. I know that both fighter jets are the creme de la creme (ok the Su-37 is even more vicious in close air combats but still not in service) but what I wanted to say is, that we only know both jets about their specifications and flight demos. None of both had been deployed in real combat so the real combat capability is still not grounded with facts. Look at the Apache attack helicopter: everyone was so fascinated about it, calling it the nightmare for all enemy forces. When it was deployed in Yugoslavia and Iraq, they had many loses against less advanced equipped forces. The F-15 has been crowned as the king of fighter jets but never fought against any jets of the Su-27 family with equal pilots.
To say it in other words: It's like Kobe Bryant playing against some second class NBA players. As long you don't play or fight against an almost equal opponent it is always easy to claim yourself as the best.
thanx for the replies with your feedback. But about the J-10 and F-16 role I'm not so agreeing with you because both platforms (although it is obvious that the J-10 design is a mix of a Lavi, F-16) is a light multi-role fighter like the F-16.
The principle difference is that the F-16 has evolved from being an extremely competent air to air fighter (F-16A/B) to a very capable bomb truck. Thats been an evolutionary process. The J-10 may well get there in the end. But at this stage she has no demonstrated runs on the board in any of the proposed disciplines
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
The ratio about air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities for both planes could be estimated to 6 : 4 (although this is a raw comparisson).
How are you coming up with those numbers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
The J-10 is a brandnew jet with much potential as a relatively low cost advanced fighter. It can be later re-fitted with better radars, targeting systems and more powerful engine if needed while Chengdu is developing the J-10C twin engine version (most likely a naval version for future aircraft carrier projects of the PLAN).
Agree to some extent, but it is highly unsual to anticipate future models before the base model has been proven beyond POC. At some stage, the only way to test that is to throw them up in the air and see how they behave in a warfighting environment as opposed to a test environment. Building a twin seems a brave step to me before all bugs have been identified in the single. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's a contrarian approach to platform development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
Gripen and JSF?
Of course the JSF is much more advanced in technology and stealth (5th gen fighter) than the J-10 (4th gen). But the Saab Gripen is not a more advanced fighter jet than the J-10. They are more in the same class with some plus and minus points for each plane.
They might be in the same weight class, but I'd argue that they're unlikely to be in the same capability class. You're talking about a plane that has linked heritage to the F-16, Viggen and Draken. The J-10 has an unadmitted link to Lavi (stillborn) and F-16B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
About the F/A-22 and the Su-35. I know that both fighter jets are the creme de la creme (ok the Su-37 is even more vicious in close air combats but still not in service)
Where is there any evidence of that? They've only got 6 and 6 aircraft is far from sufficient to establish meaningful capability - especially if its sim driven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
but what I wanted to say is, that we only know both jets about their specifications and flight demos. None of both had been deployed in real combat so the real combat capability is still not grounded with facts.
You always look at heritage and previous capability - at some point paper only analysis is risky. One could argue that the Rafale is untested - except I'd bet substantial money that it would clean up a lot of modern combat aircraft - certainly at the capability level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
Look at the Apache attack helicopter: everyone was so fascinated about it, calling it the nightmare for all enemy forces. When it was deployed in Yugoslavia and Iraq, they had many loses against less advanced equipped forces.
Both are bad examples as the losses were attributed to weaknesses in deployment and doctrine - not in the platform. Send in any asset into an environment that its not supposed to work in, and the chances are that it may not come out. In Iraq they changed the doctrine bacj to what it was designed for and immediately saw a drop in assets being compromised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
The F-15 has been crowned as the king of fighter jets but never fought against any jets of the Su-27 family with equal pilots.
But there is substantial data on Su-27's performing in Nth Africa - and the data is not that good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
To say it in other words: It's like Kobe Bryant playing against some second class NBA players. As long you don't play or fight against an almost equal opponent it is always easy to claim yourself as the best.
Out of curiosity, which airforces devote as much time to pilot hours? - I can think of 4. The other arbiter which is usually conveniently forgotten by advocates of "my plane can whip yours" is that warfighting is co-operative and 4 dimesional. Until some other country shows the same depth of integration, depth of overlay and depth of saturation, then they will struggle to meet the USAF/USN/USMC on equal terms.
The US does not fight on equal terms, thats why they degrade the enemies capability across multiple layers before they even fire a shot.
Thats why these "plane vs plane" discussions are actually quite pointless as it's not a battle between nominated champions.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Hi, I think you didn't understand all what I meant to say (maybe because I'm not that good in English) Sorry.
But my point was: Don't be foolish to do prejudice about aircraft techologies or other stuff. I'm not here to hype the Su's or MiG's over any US jets. I love jets and I don't care too much about where they from. But you should also have recognized that there are many people here who have the attitude "everything not coming from the USA must be clearly inferior". Many US sources and reports claim that Russian Flanker families belongs to the best fighter jets in the world and that the US pilots must be very aware of them. If it was only the Russians who hyped their jets I might have a different opinion about the Flankers. But the reality is that US pilots do not feel in big advantage because of their jets but more rely on their intensive flight trainings.
And about China's weapons build-up?
Many say that they could never keep up with the US forces, but then I wonder why the Pentagon is so worried about China's military modernization programmes. Some US military experts from a few years ago said that the US need to develop more next generation weapons to remain at the top of arms tech. Because China would most likely reach the current level of US military technologies from nowadays within 15 years! Some might think it was propaganda I say, but I really watched that report here in Europe and the documentation was American made! So if you don't believe it, you must blame the US for being big liars!
Hi, I think you didn't understand all what I meant to say (maybe because I'm not that good in English) Sorry.
But my point was: Don't be foolish to do prejudice about aircraft techologies or other stuff.
well, from my perspective, I would hope that I'm not. My comments are based on my work related stuff. I've dealt with US, UK, German, French, Italian, Russian, Israeli, Taiwanese, Singaporean, Polish, Australian, Austrian, Spanish, Canadian defence companies and related equipment. Thats ranged from small arms assessments to submarines to ASW aircraft. I can only go on my own experiences and I'm 49 years of age. So I've seen "a bit" to start making judgements based on those experiences. and my own personal view (for example) after seeing some Migs, Ilyushins, Tupolevs and Sukhois up close is that the pilots deserve an air combat medal for getting in and taking off in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
I'm not here to hype the Su's or MiG's over any US jets. I love jets and I don't care too much about where they from.
Ditto - I'm interested in the technology and capability in context of mission requirement - otherwise they're just "airshow mistresses"
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
But you should also have recognized that there are many people here who have the attitude "everything not coming from the USA must be clearly inferior". Many US sources and reports claim that Russian Flanker families belongs to the best fighter jets in the world and that the US pilots must be very aware of them. If it was only the Russians who hyped their jets I might have a different opinion about the Flankers. But the reality is that US pilots do not feel in big advantage because of their jets but more rely on their intensive flight trainings.
actually the US focus is also on sympathetic support systems - and thats why they rule the game over most other countries. everyone has the potential to implement "within reason" world class training - but training is also governed by the other issues of logistics and persistence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
And about China's weapons build-up?
Many say that they could never keep up with the US forces, but then I wonder why the Pentagon is so worried about China's military modernization programmes. Some US military experts from a few years ago said that the US need to develop more next generation weapons to remain at the top of arms tech.
and that historically is no different from the way that the US operates - it's a variation of the RN's Adm Fisher when he defined the "3 Powers" rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
Because China would most likely reach the current level of US military technologies from nowadays within 15 years!
That also assumes that the US slides into a temporal flux and just abandons its own development. The US is hardly going to slide into a fractured development phase when they are in a substantially strong position across all the required disciplines. (both economic and military)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLA2025
Some might think it was propaganda I say, but I really watched that report here in Europe and the documentation was American made! So if you don't believe it, you must blame the US for being big liars!
and I think you need to take that into context as well. it's also not unique to americans. ergo, just because something is american "made" (media wise) doesn't automatically mean that it's representative of fact. People like Riccioni, Sparks, or even Kopp etc... make lots of noise, show effective powerpoint presentations but also present as idealogues. They're also selective with their data.(always a litmus test of frank and open objectiveness) That doesn't necessarily mean that they are right. Like everything the truth is in the eye of the beholder. At some point the glasses have to come off and reality needs to applied as an intellectual defibrillator
Is China a forthcoming hyperpower? Yes, if the course and path of growth can be maintained then she will be within a generation. But as we are seeing, not all is happy in the northern and western regions and the very things that assisted the communists get in 57 years ago are also disturbingly similar nowadays . those same areas see that Shenzen and Shanghai are taking away their opportunities. History has a tendency to repeat itself and China can't ignore the fact that growth is uneven. Uneven growth leads to unrest. To deal with it is the issue and how you deal with it is the next. Military growth is only a subset of development.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Last edited by gf0012-aust; October 27th, 2005 at 07:36 AM.
F-15, an old aircraft it might be, stands by its performance and history as a successful platform. Others are nice picture to get blonde women attention.
The French calling Indian deal tainted? That is hilarious. Better as the Germans what they say about Scorpene to India, as they lick their wounds.
We should not forget that alpha or beta buyer, financial arrangements play a key role in deciding defence deals, like any deals. Sometimes, specifications become ir-relevant, and so does alliances (these days).
One who is willing to pay the moolah, will get the honey jar, and drink it too.
You always look at heritage and previous capability - at some point paper only analysis is risky. One could argue that the Rafale is untested - except I'd bet substantial money that it would clean up a lot of modern combat aircraft - certainly at the capability level.
Hi Gary,
hope you remember me! me mukunda from FrontierIndia. Gary, can you say something more about Rafale. Why do you think it will clean up a lot of modern aircraft? Will love to get your feelings.
Hi Gary,
hope you remember me! me mukunda from FrontierIndia. Gary, can you say something more about Rafale. Why do you think it will clean up a lot of modern aircraft? Will love to get your feelings.
hi mukunda, a few reasons:
the french have always been at the high end of the curve with solid performing aircraft. basically ever since the Mirage 111E on IMV. they've only really ever made one bad decision as far as carrier aircraft and thats because I think they should have gone with the A4's rather than develop the Super Etendard.
the french have a solid reputation for integration of systems and they're deft at managing disparate customers. after all, who else successfully sells to the US, China, India and Pakistan? It's not exactly a mutual admiration society in that little lot.
Rafales developed a good reputation in areas such as Op Herakles
the main issue is when (not if) Rafales get exported, then what the export capability of the platform will be like. then you need to factor in training and support competencies.
any analysis of a platform needs to be measured against the owners requirements. eg, if you want intercontinental strike, then an Su-34 will win hands down. In a heavily radiated/emissioned environment, I would expect the Rafale to have the advantage.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
the french have always been at the high end of the curve with solid performing aircraft. basically ever since the Mirage 111E on IMV. they've only really ever made one bad decision as far as carrier aircraft and thats because I think they should have gone with the A4's rather than develop the Super Etendard.
the french have a solid reputation for integration of systems and they're deft at managing disparate customers. after all, who else successfully sells to the US, China, India and Pakistan? It's not exactly a mutual admiration society in that little lot.
Rafales developed a good reputation in areas such as Op Herakles
the main issue is when (not if) Rafales get exported, then what the export capability of the platform will be like. then you need to factor in training and support competencies.
any analysis of a platform needs to be measured against the owners requirements. eg, if you want intercontinental strike, then an Su-34 will win hands down. In a heavily radiated/emissioned environment, I would expect the Rafale to have the advantage.
1)what is op Herakles?
2) In a heavily radiated/emissioned environment, rafales have the advantage:- are you talking of Active Radar cancellation? US was supposed to have it decades ago.
3) French sell systems to the USA too? very surprised
hi gf0012-aust!
thanx for the detailed reply, it shows that you are one of the few who really knows many facts about the strategy and technology affairs.
Ok back to the topic: I'm still wondering why Singapore is getting so many advanced weapons (they even have more advanced stuff than Taiwan) despite its small size nation (city-state). I wonder who would attack Singapore since it can rely on support from US and China! Singapore has much less to fear than Taiwan because Taiwan is having mainland China as its rival while China blocks any weapons deal between Taiwan and the deliverer country (USA, France, Germany etc.)
I guess Taiwanese militaries are very jealous of the Singaporians
Hi folks, I am a Singaporean and I happened to see so much debate on the next generation fighter selection, just want to put in some of my ideas.
Firstly, it is obvious from the announcement that Singapore has only bought 24 fighter planes, thus it is more or less obvious that the F-15 was a mere stop gap solution to wait for the F-35 to roll out. Secondly, many people on some other forum claim that Singapore bought American planes bcos we wanted to please them...... I can tell u this is a definite NO. RSAF aims to buy and plane to replace the ageing A4SU skyhawk for the attack and striking role. Thus, looking from the selection, only the F-15 seems to be tailored to deal with such needs, it has the biggest payload too. Furthermore, it comes with AESA radar and most importantly relatively cheap of 30mio if not wrong. The package also comes with training missiles, amaarams and last but not least some'diluted' versions of JSOW, thus giving us a huge advantage. It is not wise to buy Russian as it will throw our airforce into a logistic and training nightmare. Singapore has a habit of buying war-proven equipments, which therefore can conclude why F15 is chosen, and the Rafale is still a veri young and not proven system. I'm not surprise if Singapore goes for the Rafale if we are barredfrom accquiring the F-35, bcos by them the Rafale design would have been mature, tested, and comes with various kits, ammos, and upgrades.
This is also to answer to PLA2025's qns on why we need an armed forces. I can tell u this bluntly, NOBODY and exactly NOBODY owns ANYBODY a LIVING. Get this straight. In the eyes of countries there is only interest and never a committment. When the going is good, they are frenzs, when the going is Bad, they are fiends. Give u an example, during WW2, the British fled back to England leaving a small number of weapons and a collection of NZ, AUS, Malayan troops to hell it out against the armed to the teeth Japs, why? Bcos u are just a colony, their motherland more important, thus they will just say bye to u and leave u to die. The same logic is wat does Singapore have to ensure any power in the world to send their sons and daughters to sweat, bleed and die for u? Nothing. Thus, if Singapore does not have a strong forces, u will see a second Kuwait. Thus, every male citizen upon reaching the age of 18 in Singapore is expected to serve a 2.5 yrs training window and they are required to go back for refresher training till 40yrs old. For me, I am to say I finish the 2.5 yrs and I actually have fired real rounds and thrown a live grenade!
Regarding ur qns why we need cutting edge weapons. Simple, these weapons are view as force multipliers, which means we use technologies to lever out with the huge arm forces of our neighbours. An example our airforce has literally, 2 times the assets of our neighbours, this is bcos in modern context, a strong air force can pack the most punch against an agressor Thus, Singapore maintains a huge fleet of F-16 especially the SEAD verison F-16(D). We also have quite a small yet well established defense industry. The Singapore Technologies(ST) is an example. Some of their works are like example Ultimax100 LMG, SAR-21 rifle, FH-2000 howitzers, MATADOR LAW, BIONIX IFV, AV-81 TERREX, Preserverance class LSD. These reduce our needs of for foreign arms.
Aloha.
Was searching for the electronics suite for the F-15T and chanced upon this site.
PLA - Singapore has had a history 53 yrs ago when we couldnt fend for our own land. It is a small country with uber limited natural resources can easily be overrun in a blitz without proper immediate reponse forces.
The mission of the armed forces is to deter any threats to her sovereignity and to ensure a swift and decisive victory if deterence fails.
This answers why the small island state spends so much on military technology.
Regarding the J10, its probably a legacy problem. Safety is a core value of the RSAF, thus making the F15 a prefered choice over the J10. This is not just about track records, but also about proper documentations, maintainence expertise and operational training that the customer gets. We are not only buying the hardware but also the service support
IMO since the infrastructural ties are already in place with da US there should be an expected reduction in transition time from setup to FOC of the F15 sqn in Singapore. = cost savings + safer ops
Anyway. after 9/11 there arose a greater need for C4I and network centricity. The advanced electrioncs suite that the f15 comes with certainly gives a major boost to future plans. (read:longbow )
Information technology is the way to go in the 21st century, efficient and accurate dissemination of data allows the personnel to make a more informed decision when pushing the button.
I know what im writing is really vague but i had to leave out offiicial words due to security reasons.
Anyone heard about the Eagle Wall?
" During one of the multilateral exercises with the US few years back, non of our fighters actually made it past the Eagle Wall. All were shot down (ACMI). The wall was unscarthed." -Anonymous
" During one of the multilateral exercises with the US few years back, non of our fighters actually made it past the Eagle Wall. All were shot down (ACMI). The wall was unscarthed." -Anonymous
Air supremacy they say.
First, welcome to the forums.
Second - and with ref to above. The first reference I heard regarding "Eagle Wall" was from the 1st Gulf War. It referred to a specific defensive layer of aircraft that was managed by an AWACs.
You probably won't get too much detail about systems and techniques used though as there is an extraordinary amount of info that never gets into the public domain - so google is not your friend in this case.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
) 
