Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Republic of Singapore Air Force Discussions

This is a discussion on Republic of Singapore Air Force Discussions within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Ok guys let me put it in simpler terms given a requirement for Air Superiority fighter,which of the two aircrafts ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 7 votes, 4.86 average.
Old May 23rd, 2006   #61
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
powerslavenegi's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 186
Threads:
F-18SH or F-15

Ok guys let me put it in simpler terms given a requirement for Air Superiority fighter,which of the two aircrafts would you guys prefer the Eagle or SH(assuming that both are more or less fitted with same electronic suite and weapons)? I would personally go with the Eagle,for it has an operational cieling of approx 65k feet against 50k for SH a diff of nearly .4-.5Mach in speed,and lastly a combat radius of nearly 750NMI against 500nmi.It's a dream machine.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/us...F-15_Eagle.htm
powerslavenegi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #62
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 642
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerslavenegi
Ok guys let me put it in simpler terms given a requirement for Air Superiority fighter,which of the two aircrafts would you guys prefer the Eagle or SH(assuming that both are more or less fitted with same electronic suite and weapons)? I would personally go with the Eagle,for it has an operational cieling of approx 65k feet against 50k for SH a diff of nearly .4-.5Mach in speed,and lastly a combat radius of nearly 750NMI against 500nmi.It's a dream machine.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/us...F-15_Eagle.htm
AIFAIK the service ceiling of the F-15 is more about 60000 ft. However the Eagle was designed as an air superioriy fighter and even the newer Strike Eagles fullfil the role well. I would ever prefer the F-15 as air superiority fighter over the F/A-18E/F. The SH is a very flexible and overall good aircraft, but it has to be taken into account that the SH was developed as a carrier borne multirole fighter. There were some compromises neccessary for SH. The SH is still a good AA platform with its mostly sufficient performance, lowered RCS, avionics and weapons.
Scorpion82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #63
Banned Member
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpion82
In Iraqi Freedom? When then in Desert Storm, but in Iraqi freedom there was no single iraqi fighter airborne AFAIK, simply because Saddam let all pilot be killed and the aircraft were sunk into the desert sand.
And exact at what speed?
Technically it was Op Southern Watch as we were bombing the Southern no-fly zone but hostilities occured 2 days later so I digress to OIF.

I was travelling at M 1.25 and the F-15 was doubling the distance b/w us so it must have been around M 2.5.

Last edited by Big-E; May 23rd, 2006 at 10:37 AM.
Big-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #64
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutus Caesar
I know you hate stupidity in posts so I don't expect you to answer my know doubt uneducated post, but I really am confused as to how leasing an interim aircraft would have MASSIVE long term effects of RAAF force structure?
That's alright mate. I simply meant that by leasing an interim aircraft, funds that SHOULD go to AIR 6000, will go on said interim aircraft, thus reducing our long term ability to properly equip RAAF under AIR 6000. Unless you think supplementary funding of around $7-8 Billion is available and likely to be used to replace our HUB BUG's?

Anyhoo, as E pointed out, back to the Sings Eagle's...
  Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #65
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 642
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-E
Technically it was Op Southern Watch as we were bombing the Southern no-fly zone but hostilities occured 2 days later so I digress to OIF.

I was travelling at M 1.25 and the F-15 was doubling the distance b/w us so it must have been around M 2.5.
Understand the first part, also I wonder that at that time iraqis were still flying.

For the second part, doubling the distance refered to speed? I understand that the F-15 was faster but I don't clearly understand how you get out the speed as you didn't explain the circumstances more detailed.
I assume the MiG-25 flyed towards your F/A-18C(?) the F-15 was near to you and then accelerated? That would make sense at all.
BTW why did you fly Mach 1.25 with AG weapons load. Isn't there the risk of overspeeding the stores (sure it depends on what stores exactly were carried).
Scorpion82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2006   #66
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 100
Threads:
This thread is getting more interesting...

Plenty of overspeeding the stores are very often technical in nature. To be more explicit, it is often because the operational requirement documents did not require such a high speed, and hence to cut cost and optimise testing resources, the aircraft was not tested to higher limits. Does that mean that the aircraft is "bent" after exceeding the store limits? Depends...maybe and maybe not. But in an operational conflict, that is usually secondary unless you feel your wing start to flap really hard .

BVR combat is not only about speed. Mach 2.5 may be a significant advantage. But what was the cost of getting there? For a F-22, it is minimal. For a F-15, it means a lot of gas. Can the platform sustain the fight at that speed? Can the platform decelerate to a more optimal turn speed (so that turn radius don't become 10 miles) turn to the desired direction and then accelerate again to that kind of speed? In my opinion, the Super Flankers and Raptors can do that due to engine design (high thrust to weight ratio, wing aspect ratio as well as extremely efficient thrust line due to thrust vectoring nozzles). The Eagle can't do that.

The super bug is a bug on steriods. To my knowledge, it has not shown to perform significantly better than the normal bug in Flag exercises. Neither has the Strike Eagle.

Brutus Caesar, the various AMRAAM variants are currently in development and I do not think that the F-15SG will come with the C7 or D variant of the AMRAAM. In any case, you can also equip the Typhoon with AMRAAMs. If the advanced variants are available to the F-15SG, then I would think that it would likely be available to the Typhoon as well.

The Eagle, Rafale and Typhoon are all good fighters, but I think that at this point in time, none of them are good enough for Singapore.

I disagree with Singapore's approach to purchase an interim fighter (F-15SG). Over the next 5 years, I do not think that the Singapore air force is in any threat of being overwhelmed by its neighbours. It has probably twice the number of significant fighters that its nearest neighbours can throw at it at any one time.

A strategic hedge is like buying insurance. When is insurance too much? Is billions of taxpayer's $ too much?
guppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2006   #67
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by guppy
This thread is getting more interesting...

Plenty of overspeeding the stores are very often technical in nature. To be more explicit, it is often because the operational requirement documents did not require such a high speed, and hence to cut cost and optimise testing resources, the aircraft was not tested to higher limits. Does that mean that the aircraft is "bent" after exceeding the store limits? Depends...maybe and maybe not. But in an operational conflict, that is usually secondary unless you feel your wing start to flap really hard .

BVR combat is not only about speed. Mach 2.5 may be a significant advantage. But what was the cost of getting there? For a F-22, it is minimal. For a F-15, it means a lot of gas. Can the platform sustain the fight at that speed? Can the platform decelerate to a more optimal turn speed (so that turn radius don't become 10 miles) turn to the desired direction and then accelerate again to that kind of speed? In my opinion, the Super Flankers and Raptors can do that due to engine design (high thrust to weight ratio, wing aspect ratio as well as extremely efficient thrust line due to thrust vectoring nozzles). The Eagle can't do that.

The super bug is a bug on steriods. To my knowledge, it has not shown to perform significantly better than the normal bug in Flag exercises. Neither has the Strike Eagle.

Brutus Caesar, the various AMRAAM variants are currently in development and I do not think that the F-15SG will come with the C7 or D variant of the AMRAAM. In any case, you can also equip the Typhoon with AMRAAMs. If the advanced variants are available to the F-15SG, then I would think that it would likely be available to the Typhoon as well.

The Eagle, Rafale and Typhoon are all good fighters, but I think that at this point in time, none of them are good enough for Singapore.

I disagree with Singapore's approach to purchase an interim fighter (F-15SG). Over the next 5 years, I do not think that the Singapore air force is in any threat of being overwhelmed by its neighbours. It has probably twice the number of significant fighters that its nearest neighbours can throw at it at any one time.

A strategic hedge is like buying insurance. When is insurance too much? Is billions of taxpayer's $ too much?
The C7 AMRAAAM is the current spec AMRAAM. RAAF upgraded to C5 only 2 years ago or so and it's already been superseded... C-7 is in US service at present. I'd imagine that "preferred" customers would also be able to purchase the C-7 variant off the US.

AIM-120D as you correctly point out is still under development...

I think the Eagle is a good choice for Singapore. It allows for one thing significant "breathing space" should any delays occur in the JSF program. It will provide overmatch against virtually any other rival fighter aircraft until JSF comes along. I'd like to see F-15 purchased in sufficient quantities to entirely replace A-4SU and F-5II. It would truely be a force to be reckoned with then operating a dual force of advanced Eagle/Falcon variants...

RAAF would certainly pale beside it, despite it's arguable "force multiplier" advantage (once Wedgetail and A330 AAR arrive) anyway...

Once Singapore orders JSF however it should be operating a dual F-15/JSF fleet, which will be the best force this side of F-22/JSF, IMHO...
  Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2006   #68
Junior Member
Private First Class
kotay's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N 2˚31.12' E130˚58.54'
Posts: 87
Threads:
The NFRP was to find a replacement for the A-4SU. Would it be fair to assume that the decision to select the F-15SG above all others was biased towards strike capabilities as opposed to air superiority capabilities?

The list of candidates in this area is a lot smaller than air superiority/multi-role aircrafts. I believe the RAAF is agonising over a suitable replacement for their F-111s without having to trade down in range/payload capabilities.

The F-15SG, when operational, will also give the RSAF a capability they've never had ... deep strike, beyond the capabilities of the venerable A-4SU (which they are replacing) and the newly operational F-16D Blk52+ (which replaced the Skyhawks in 145 Squadron).

True, there can be such as thing as too much insurance, but what is the alternative ... no insurance?

The time line for alternative (comparable to F-15SG) strike platforms currently available or in the near future suggest an interim period of significantly more than 5 years. If I assume that any orders placed will only be fulfilled after existing partner orders, then the RSAF will only be able to receive Rafales (F2/F3) somewhere between 2012-2019 and the Typhoons (Tranche 2) after 2015. I may be wrong on this. JSF, I'm not sure what dates the RSAF will be looking at considering we're at the tail end of a not insignificant queue ... on top of that, does it have the range/payload of the F-15?

The F-15SG is slated to begin delivery in 2008.

In the meantime, what should the RSAF do with the personnel from the just retired 142 squadron? If they are "retired", wouldn't that represent a significant loss in acquired experience not to mention the monetary investment in their training to date?
kotay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2006   #69
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotay
The NFRP was to find a replacement for the A-4SU. Would it be fair to assume that the decision to select the F-15SG above all others was biased towards strike capabilities as opposed to air superiority capabilities?

The list of candidates in this area is a lot smaller than air superiority/multi-role aircrafts. I believe the RAAF is agonising over a suitable replacement for their F-111s without having to trade down in range/payload capabilities.

The F-15SG, when operational, will also give the RSAF a capability they've never had ... deep strike, beyond the capabilities of the venerable A-4SU (which they are replacing) and the newly operational F-16D Blk52+ (which replaced the Skyhawks in 145 Squadron).

True, there can be such as thing as too much insurance, but what is the alternative ... no insurance?

The time line for alternative (comparable to F-15SG) strike platforms currently available or in the near future suggest an interim period of significantly more than 5 years. If I assume that any orders placed will only be fulfilled after existing partner orders, then the RSAF will only be able to receive Rafales (F2/F3) somewhere between 2012-2019 and the Typhoons (Tranche 2) after 2015. I may be wrong on this. JSF, I'm not sure what dates the RSAF will be looking at considering we're at the tail end of a not insignificant queue ... on top of that, does it have the range/payload of the F-15?

The F-15SG is slated to begin delivery in 2008.

In the meantime, what should the RSAF do with the personnel from the just retired 142 squadron? If they are "retired", wouldn't that represent a significant loss in acquired experience not to mention the monetary investment in their training to date?
Yep, the F-35A/C variants carry as much fuel internally as F-15E/SG variants do with CFT's fitted.

True, RAAF would like an aircraft with F-111 like range, but one does not exist short of B-1B lancers or Russian strike aircraft, which will never serve in RAAF service, due to their unnerving tendancy to fall out of the sky at a high rate...

No-one in the West seems interested in building aircraft that can match the range of F-111 like aircraft either nowadays...

Still an F-35A loaded up with 400k+ JASSM's will be a pretty decent long range striker...
  Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2006   #70
Junior Member
Private First Class
kotay's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N 2˚31.12' E130˚58.54'
Posts: 87
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by guppy
BVR combat is not only about speed. Mach 2.5 may be a significant advantage. But what was the cost of getting there? For a F-22, it is minimal. For a F-15, it means a lot of gas. Can the platform sustain the fight at that speed? Can the platform decelerate to a more optimal turn speed (so that turn radius don't become 10 miles) turn to the desired direction and then accelerate again to that kind of speed? In my opinion, the Super Flankers and Raptors can do that due to engine design (high thrust to weight ratio, wing aspect ratio as well as extremely efficient thrust line due to thrust vectoring nozzles). The Eagle can't do that.
This is an interesting read, I'm not as conversant on this topic and my query stems from a layman's approach using simple physics as a basis. Bear with me.

I believe we're talking about any of the above platforms accelerating to a high Mach number to impart more energy to the BVR missile at point of launch. Quick deceleration to achieve a tighter turn radius so as not to stray into the OPFORís threat zone and quick acceleration to get the hell out of dodge.

With regards to acceleration (in a straight line), I donít see the Eagle being significantly overmatched by either the Super Flankers or Raptors. Iím quite the Eagle has a pretty healthy thrust-weight ratio. I'm not quite sure how Thrust vectoring will change this.

As for the F-15 guzzling more gas to execute the above Ö isnít fuel consumption from acceleration more a function of the engineís economy, the platformís weight and aerodynamic design? I donít see how the F-15 will suffer a significant penalty in this area in comparison to say the Super Flanker.

While Thrust Vectoring and aerodynamic design will allow for a faster turn rate, the difference in turn radius for the above platforms are not that significant, such as to halve a high speed 10 mile turn radius. Iíll agree that it is nonetheless sufficient to make a (big) difference in a WVR engagement, but it is unlikely to be a major factor in a BVR engagement.

Certainly there are other factors such as the airframe/pilotís ability to absorb the g forces generated and the platforms ability to maintain the energy in a sustained turn. This seems to the greater limiter in preventing planes from turning in ever diminishing circles.

I would certainly love to have the above better explained Ö free education.

BTW, why are we comparing the F-15 to the F-22? Itís very unlikely that the RSAF will even be offered the F-22.
kotay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2006   #71
Junior Member
Private First Class
kotay's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N 2˚31.12' E130˚58.54'
Posts: 87
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger
Yep, the F-35A/C variants carry as much fuel internally as F-15E/SG variants do with CFT's fitted.

True, RAAF would like an aircraft with F-111 like range, but one does not exist short of B-1B lancers or Russian strike aircraft, which will never serve in RAAF service, due to their unnerving tendancy to fall out of the sky at a high rate...

No-one in the West seems interested in building aircraft that can match the range of F-111 like aircraft either nowadays...

Still an F-35A loaded up with 400k+ JASSM's will be a pretty decent long range striker...
I found it difficult to find range figures for comparison for the F-15 and F-35. What (dubious) figures I could find seemed to indicate the Eagle having a longer reach. I'll take your POV that more fuel on a single engine equates to a longer range than less fuel on 2 engines.

Not wanting to bring this OT, I was using the RAAF situation to highlight the difficulty in finding a suitable strike fighter (assuming that was the RSAF's requirement). As you said, no one seems to want to build these platforms.

On the F-35/JASSM combo. I vaguely recall reading that the Block 3(?) F-35As that will be delivered to the RAAF will not have the JASSM integerated. It will have a broad range of AAMs and PGMs just not SOW or the JASSM. Apparently, it was a result of cost cutting measures to keep the F-35 cost manageable. Would appreciate being corrected if I'm also wrong on this
kotay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2006   #72
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotay
I found it difficult to find range figures for comparison for the F-15 and F-35. What (dubious) figures I could find seemed to indicate the Eagle having a longer reach. I'll take your POV that more fuel on a single engine equates to a longer range than less fuel on 2 engines.

Not wanting to bring this OT, I was using the RAAF situation to highlight the difficulty in finding a suitable strike fighter (assuming that was the RSAF's requirement). As you said, no one seems to want to build these platforms.

On the F-35/JASSM combo. I vaguely recall reading that the Block 3(?) F-35As that will be delivered to the RAAF will not have the JASSM integerated. It will have a broad range of AAMs and PGMs just not SOW or the JASSM. Apparently, it was a result of cost cutting measures to keep the F-35 cost manageable. Would appreciate being corrected if I'm also wrong on this
Why do you think RAAF wants the source codes for JSF so bad? There may be many munitions that we wish to integrate onto the platform that the US has no interest in and thus doesn't spend the money on.

For instance RAAF requires a dedicated maritime strike weapon for it's combat aircraft. Neither Harpoon II or the Norwegian NSM missile (that the RAAF has announced interest in as it's follow-on ASM missile), to the best of my knowledge is to be integrated onto the JSF as "standard".

Other examples may follow. Range figures for obvious reasons are pretty rarely published in the public domain, however it has been said publicly that JSF will have a significantly enhanced range over F/A-18/F-16 and Eurocanard fighters. With about the same fuel load on board as an F-15E it's apparent that the F-35A everything else being equal, will have a similar range to if not greater than said Strike Eagle.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2006   #73
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Magoo's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 665
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotay
I found it difficult to find range figures for comparison for the F-15 and F-35. What (dubious) figures I could find seemed to indicate the Eagle having a longer reach. I'll take your POV that more fuel on a single engine equates to a longer range than less fuel on 2 engines.

Not wanting to bring this OT, I was using the RAAF situation to highlight the difficulty in finding a suitable strike fighter (assuming that was the RSAF's requirement). As you said, no one seems to want to build these platforms.

On the F-35/JASSM combo. I vaguely recall reading that the Block 3(?) F-35As that will be delivered to the RAAF will not have the JASSM integerated. It will have a broad range of AAMs and PGMs just not SOW or the JASSM. Apparently, it was a result of cost cutting measures to keep the F-35 cost manageable. Would appreciate being corrected if I'm also wrong on this
I was told as recently as two months ago by senior LockMart JSF program managers that JASSM is included in the JSF baseline weapons package, so I'm not sure where that information is coming from.

Magoo
________________
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
Magoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2006   #74
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 46
Threads:
Sorry for jumping in so late.

Personally, I feel that out of the remaining aircraft that remained in our fighter replacement programme, the Strike Eagle was the most likely candidate. Of course the RSAF and Defence procurement drew up very strict requirements for the new aircraft, that I have full confidence.

I'm sure that the Typhoon is, and will be a very capable fighter, so will the Rafale, F/A-18E/F as well as the Flanker. Sometimes, in the case of the RSAF, its not just capabilities that we are looking at. We need our fighter replacements soon. And in Boeing can deliver within our required timeframe, while supplying us with the capabilities we require.

As an amateur, I feel there are some less subtle reasons why we chose the F-15SG above others.

Typhoon: Though the RSAF was VERY VERY impressed with it, eventually, they were not able to provide us a finished product by our required timeframe. Extremely capable aircraft, but a lil too late.

Super Hornet: Our Malaysian Neighbours were planning on buying them. Not that we are looking to start a war with them.

Sukhois: We've never flown Russian Jets before. Though they maybe cheap, learning how to maintain them would be a lil challenging. The Sukhoi's powerful engines tend to wear out a lot faster too.

F-16E/Fs: We already operate a fleet of Block 52s, and yes integrating them would be easy. But I believe one of our requirements was for a twin engine aircraft. Besides, even with conformal fuel tanks... the Viper E's legs are still gonna be a lil short.

Why the F-15SG: After looking through this forum, seeing the numerous posts made in regard to this matter, I believe everybody has overlooked one point. The Strike Eagle is also flown by the Israeli Air Force.

Examine our combat aircraft inventory and you will find that besides the F-5, the rest are also flown or were flown by the Israeli Air Force at some point. Examine our Block 52Ds and u will find that they are almost identical to the Soufa's. There is much Israeli technology that have been intergrated into our Air Force. And purchasing an Aircraft which the Israeli's have operated before, makes it only easier and faster to assimilate the new Eagles into our Air Force. Time is of the essence.

The RMAF is taking delivery of their Sukhoi 30MKMs some time this year. Perhaps around June - or July, hence, the sooner we can get our NGF, the better.
Zaphael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2006   #75
Defense Professional / Analyst
Private First Class
LazerLordz's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 62
Threads:
The Israeli angle is something often overlooked by critics of the Eagle program.

Furthermore, if they would just look beyond the usual northern bogeyman, the real threat is not in our backyard, it is farther..
LazerLordz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:08 PM.