F-35 - International Participation

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

Gent's How credible this is ? If we see the article, seems US agree to give LM go ahead for different 'variant' of 'export' F-35. Perhaps a variant that not interconnected toward US network.

However if this's reliable, then perhaps US found a way to give F-35 to customers like UAE something that not fully as capable with US and main allies F-35. F-35 capabilities as we know also derived on fully utilising US network. Could it selling F-35 without full access from the users on the network something found as middle ground ?


LM FB shown more active posting on F-35, which in my book shown more promotional effort. Will this 'export' variant is something they want to prepare for F-16 customers that are not US main allies circle ? They're doing similar pattern before with F-16.
Media reporting…

No-one designs a new variant of a fighter aircraft for $49m… You’d be lucky to even get a single new weapons type integrated for that…

This will be some software specific modifications requested by a customer to an otherwise stock standard A or B model.

Likely Israel or Singapore, IMHO…
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Thanks for the explanation @ADMk2 , I also suspect it's bit fishy. The article reporting as the $49mio as part of study on preparing different pvariance.

The term variance indicating considerable adjustment on specs. Make's me wonder if there's considerable effort to prepare 'export' variance.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #703
Thanks for the explanation @ADMk2 , I also suspect it's bit fishy. The article reporting as the $49mio…
Like ADMK2, I suspect this is a Singapore requested change, as the SAF needs minor F-35B modifications, for the platform to fit in Singapore’s network centric system C4ISR and also a custom IFF system (which will need to be tested at a future Exercise Forging Sabre).
 
Last edited:

south

Well-Known Member
Like ADMK2, I suspect this is a Singapore requested change, as the SAF needs minor F-35B modifications, for the platform to fit in Singapore’s network centric system C4ISR and also a custom IFF system (which will need to be tested at a future Exercise Forging Sabre).
OPSSG, what is driving the desire for a unique CNI/IFF if allies cannot integrate with it?
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
OPSSG, what is driving the desire for a unique CNI/IFF if allies cannot integrate with it?
Just a guess, but it could just be minor changes to allow communications/interactions to the desired extent with their existing assets and/or provide common interface elements? That would be plausible given the price tag quoted.

Software changes can be extremely lucrative for the contractor, if all goes to plan.

Countries like Australia just build such extras into the overall public figure so it’s always quite hard to figure out exact values. Singapore, or whoever it is, likely then budgets in a similar way to the US and UK by breaking component costs into parts (to some extent or another).
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #706
Post 1 of 3: Deterrence & defending the Merlion’s interests during manufactured disputes (port waters & airspace)

OPSSG, what is driving the desire for a unique CNI/IFF if allies cannot integrate with it?
1. Think of it as different modes.
  • One mode for FPDA partners and the US Navy (i.e. work with allies), and a second mode for use when tensions with Malaysia boil over, due to a shooting incident (from a ramming incident with the Singapore Navy).
  • There is a need to sink about 1/2 of the Malaysian Navy, in the second phase of a forward defence campaign plan; in the unlikely event that a need arises to climb the escalation ladder, should any of Singapore’s 3 redlines are crossed — including any attempt to cut of the water supply from Johor, prior to its expiry in 2061 (in violation of a UN registered agreement, namely, the Johor River Water Agreement) — I view this as planning for escalation dominance, should the need arise due to the crossing of a redline.

Just a guess, but it could just be minor changes to allow communications/interactions to the desired extent with their existing assets and/or provide common interface elements? That would be plausible given the price tag quoted.

Software changes can be extremely lucrative for the contractor, if all goes to plan.
2. That is possible but not open source. It is suspected that this might be a contract for Israel or Singapore.
(a) Following a lengthy evaluation process, Singapore in July 2019 selected the F-35B to replace its fleet of 60 F-16C/Ds starting in 2030. And in Jan 2020, the U.S. State Department cleared Singapore’s request for 12 F-35Bs, with four confirmed and an option for eight more. In Jun 2021, the U.S. and Singaporean governments selected Ebbing Air National Guard Base in Fort Smith, Arkansas, to host Singapore’s F-16 and future F-35B fighter jet training detachments.​
(b) I speculate that the Army Tactical Engagement and Information System has data sharing limitations when coordinating with certain air force assets (that is not part of of the UAV or Participation Commands, who are army centric in support of the main campaign) and it needs a software plug-in to the main Link 16 system backbone (which was first developed as a Link 11 system by the Singapore Navy for the rest of the SAF).​
 
Last edited:

ddxx

Well-Known Member
Think of it as different modes.

One mode for FPDA partners and the US Navy, and a second mode for use when tensions with Malaysia boil over, due to a shooting incident (from a ramming incident with the Singapore Navy).
A tad off topic, delete if too much so, but I’ve always been curious about the Malaysian / Singaporean situation and there’s not much current / easily accessible academic writing on the topic?
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #708
Post 2 of 3: Deterrence & defending the Merlion’s interests during manufactured disputes (port waters & airspace)

3. There are some scattered news reports of minor tensions from 2018 to 2021. As many are aware, a dispute emerged between Singapore and Malaysia, which (re)emerged unexpectedly in Oct 2018. This latest round of Dr. M initiated dispute concerns the maritime area in the Johor Strait, which is off the coast of Singapore’s reclaimed land area known as Tuas — the Malaysian vessel MV Jabatan Laut Polaris, was involved in a collision with a Greek bulk carrier on 9 Feb 2019, during the period it was illegally parked in Singapore port waters (for the Malaysian purpose of furthering tensions in the 2018 to 2019 period).
(a) In Oct 2018, Malaysia Transport Minister Anthony Loke declared that “the altered port limits of Johor Bahru are in Malaysia’s territorial sea and it is well within Malaysia’s right to draw any port limit in our territorial sea in accordance with our national laws.” Following this declaration, by Dec 2018, as part of their luminal warfare plan, Malaysian vessels started daily intrusions into Singapore’s Tuas port limits As a result of 2018-2019 tensions, the Maritime Security and Response Flotilla was additionally allocated 4 former Fearless-class patrol vessels (refurbished and re-inducted into service), known as Sentinel-class Maritime Security and Response Vessels (MSRVs). These will operate beside two Maritime Security and Response Tugboats to enable more calibrated responses, in a troubled peace scenario. The 4 MSRVs are in addition to the 8 Littoral Mission Vessels.
(b) “On 11 September 2021 a Royal Malaysian Police helicopter was travelling in a southeasterly direction towards Tanjung Pengelih in southern Johor when it entered Singapore's territorial airspace above the eastern part of Pulau Tekong without approval,” said Singapore's Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen in a written response to a parliamentary question published on 5 Oct 2021. Rodzi Md Saad, Malaysia’s director general of Majlis Keselamatan Negara Malaysia (MKN), as a VIP paid a visit to Malaysia’s Abu Baka Maritime Base — opposite the formerly disputed Petra Branca — in an AW-139 helicopter (9M-PMD). Nothing wrong with a Malaysian VIP visiting their own base, right? Except for a minor detail on this 9-11 visit. The Royal Malaysia Police helicopter, 9M-PMD, flew over Pulau Tekong’s air space for about 2 minutes — which is home to Singapore’s Basic Military Training Centre. Singapore scrambled 2 F-16s armed with AIM-9Xs and AIM-120-C7s around 9.20am, Singapore time, when 9M-PMD flew over Pulau Tekong. The RSAF’s air sovereignty fighters had about 4.5 minutes of reaction time (from the time the AW139 changed course 13 km away from our borders) and when they reached Pulau Tekong/Singapore airspace. Given that the total reaction time from change of direction to departure was 6.5 minutes — I understand why the AW139 helicopter did not get a verbal warning.​
4. Along with the past maritime issues that pre-date 1991, in the 2018-2019 period airspace dispute was also contentious, with Malaysia protesting the proposed use of a new Instrument Landing System (ILS) at the Seletar airport, arguing that flight paths would restrict development in the Johor town of Pasir Gudang. In response, Singapore has argued that it would rely upon existing flight paths that have been used for decades.

A tad off topic, delete if too much so, but I’ve always been curious about the Malaysian / Singaporean situation and there’s not much current / easily accessible academic writing on the topic?
5. Very little credible open source writing on the topic of the SAF in phase zero planning for conflict between Malaysia and Singapore. Only mentioned by Tim Huxley, as part of his discussion on forward defence, in Defending the Lion City. Of course, Singapore in military capability is not the Kuwait of 1991 that was over-run by Saddam’s forces.
(a) Gallantry of soldiers, sailors and airmen is what happens after Singapore’s diplomacy, intelligence, economic strength, and strategy fail, to keep Singaporeans secure. Certain Malaysians in 2018 keep telling Singaporeans to dial down on the siege mentality; when they are the biggest contributor to this mentality. IMO, it is the mentality of Malaysian politicians (in their quest to stay in power), as demonstrated by Dr M, that creates a security dilemma for the small city state.​
(b) While Singapore aims to be a friend with as many countries as possible, the small city state must never be bought, or intimidated, or bullied into acting against its national interest. This is why, Singapore has no intention to be intimidated by Malaysian political actions in 1991 or in 2018.​

6. Singapore’s forward defence strategy has now shifted focus to the maritime domain (in ungoverned spaces), which automatically means a focus on the Singapore Navy’s bilateral working relationships with the Australian Navy, the Brunei Navy, the US Navy and the TNI AL. With the mobility of the future Joint-Multi-Mission Ship (JMMS), it could act as a C4ISR platform for military operations in the littorals. These sea control and amphibious missions could be carried out from an unexpected quarter, complicating the insurgent’s or enemy’s calculus in either the Straits of Malacca and beyond or in the South China Sea.

(a) Hopefully, the SAF can also address Pinoy and Indonesian HADR concerns when the JMMS program starts to cut steel in the 2030s as replacements for the four 7,600 ton Endurance Class LPDs. The JMMS (that is to be built), can not only carry H225Ms, Satcom equipped CH-47Fs (for beyond line-of sight communications) and various types of UAS, it could also act as a forward arming and refuelling point at sea to support land-based F-35Bs on sorties. But UAS carriage is not only about ISR. Rather, these unmanned systems can provide early warning, conduct EW; and serve as a communications relay for ships in a task group and for ship to shore communications.​
(b) The eventual acquisition of up to 12 F-35Bs in around 2026 to 2028 will enable the 21st Division and its 7th Singapore Infantry Brigade (7 SIB), as an infantry formation specializing in heliborne and amphibious operations, supported by the future JMMS to operate more like a mini Marine expeditionary brigade (MEB) of the US Marines with its aviation combat element forward deployed on a land base in Brunei or Malaysia.​
(c) Supported by Singapore Navy ships from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd flotillas — it is likely that troops from 7SIB is the force of choice to be deployed in a coalition with foreign diplomats, a large contingent of policemen from different countries and international aid workers in a complex situation. The only issue is that the all professional side of the SAF is too small, in size, at only one evergreen battalion that is found in the Army Deployment Force.​
(d) Details of the JMMS are currently sketchy, but they will reportedly have double the capacity of the current Endurance Class vessels. As Ben Ho has written: “What is perhaps clearer is that Singapore is likely to continue its long-standing gradualist approach towards arms procurement. The JMMS should be no different in this regard. Post-2030, when the platform is expected to launch, we can expect to see an ‘Endurance 1.5’ rather than an ‘Endurance 2.0’ to enter service.”​
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
OPSSG, what is driving the desire for a unique CNI/IFF if allies cannot integrate with it?
Other articles mention a possible modification of the B’s refuelling setup to make it compatible with Singapore’s MMRT boom system. Finland may want a USN refuelling probe for their F-35As.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Other articles mention a possible modification of the B’s refuelling setup to make it compatible with Singapore’s MMRT boom system. Finland may want a USN refuelling probe for their F-35As.
I scratch my head on that. The Boom port on the F35A is located rather close to the Lift fan door on F35B.
5BFFDDF4-0E53-45A7-8E27-609D20BA26A5.png
Image source F-35 Lightning II instructor pilots conduct aerial refueling
public Domain image USAF F35A
we can clearly see the reciprocal doors open here.
B41378B9-18FD-4855-A5B1-AD7EEA15FE83.png
image Source U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lands on JS Izumo public domain USMC F35B
When F35B goes for a Short take off as we know it kinda pulls a trick out of Transformers with hatches and doors opening and the nozzle of the F135 rotating more like the ovapositor of the Alien Queen.
Along the dorsal of the craft a large flap like door unflatteringly sometimes called the “Toilet lid” or “scoop” opens. This is the inlet for air to feed the Lift fan behind that door is a second set of doors these are the exhaust doors. They are used to redirect diverted air from the lift fan nozzles shutter on the ventral so the air has someplace to go.

Besides the 6 A330 MRTT Singapore uses was designed with and has the Chobham 905E Drogue system installed on the wings. Meaning it should be able to refuel F35B without physical limitations.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
On the A with probe, I believe the weight/space has always been reserved so that any user could select either or both. The B with receptacle ? As you say, looks a cluttered piece of real estate.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
On the A with probe, I believe the weight/space has always been reserved so that any user could select either or both. The B with receptacle ? As you say, looks a cluttered piece of real estate.
The space is there it could be added but you would probably have the result of an F35 with both systems hardware meaning a heavier aircraft.
Possibly unpopular opinion, if you don’t want the lift system but want the probe, I say buy F35C.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Other articles mention a possible modification of the B’s refuelling setup to make it compatible with Singapore’s MMRT boom system. Finland may want a USN refuelling probe for their F-35As.
Singapore operate the A330 MRTT which comes fitted with the boom and the hose and drogue system. So why would Singapore be wanting to change the AAR fittings to their F-35B?
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #714
Post 3 of 3: Deterrence & defending the Merlion’s interests during manufactured disputes (port waters & airspace)

7. All Singapore airbases are within mortar and artillery range of Malaysia. To address this concern, the Air Force is able to operate on alternate runways (on certain public roads — where the 6 A330MRTTs are unable to operate). The country also retains at least 2 KC-130Hs fitted with the hose and drogue system — last used to refuel F-5E/Fs, that were retired after the F-15SGs were acquired. This ensures that the 100 fighter fleet (60 F-16Vs and 40 F-15SGs) has adequate support for air-to-air refuelling.

8. It is in Singapore’s interest to use established forward arming and refuelling procedures created by the US Marine Corps for their STOVL F-35Bs and to make full use of existing assets, like hose and drogue equipped KC-130Hs, to build resilience against any attempt at runway denial.
(a) The challenge is how to get adequate supplies to a Forward Arming and Refueling Point (FARP) for its mission to be successful. To speed up the process, the US Marines are experimenting with more disposable supply containers to provide FARP with an enhanced speed of movement.​
(b) It’s also pretty clear that the new satcom equipped CH-47Fs being acquired by Singapore, are intended to be used in setting up FARPs — including the deployment of a helicopter expeditionary refueling system, from the future JMMS (that is to be built in the 2030s).​

9. STOVL operations is a new joint forces capability to be developed and SAF takes an incremental risk reduction approach by following the air power and sea power lead of the American, the British and the Italian forces, who are experts in operating STOVL fighters and their selection of F-35Bs are but an incremental step to growing that capability. Given that the Italians also operate the M-346, as an advanced trainer, Singapore can audit their F-35B pilot pipeline training process and there are a few Italian speaking Singapore pilots that have passed through the Italian course.

Singapore operate the A330 MRTT which comes fitted with the boom and the hose and drogue system. So why would Singapore be wanting to change the AAR fittings to their F-35B?
+1
 
Last edited:

Terran

Well-Known Member
I do think it is Singapore, but it’s probably for electric warfare or some radio or datalink like Israel.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The space is there it could be added but you would probably have the result of an F35 with both systems hardware meaning a heavier aircraft.
Possibly unpopular opinion, if you don’t want the lift system but want the probe, I say buy F35C.
Then you purchase a yet again more expensive aircraft that has significant weight penalties beyond the weight of an added refuelling probe and associated plumbing and gives you a bit more range than an -A model but weaker kinematics overall and no other capability benefit…

As all other SAF fighters are boom only, the ability to probe refuel offers a capability increase overall via less demand on those scarce AAR booms…
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Then you purchase a yet again more expensive aircraft that has significant weight penalties beyond the weight of an added refuelling probe and associated plumbing and gives you a bit more range than an -A model but weaker kinematics overall and no other capability benefit…

As all other SAF fighters are boom only, the ability to probe refuel offers a capability increase overall via less demand on those scarce AAR booms…
I am a not an expert on Singapore but my understanding is that the SAF tanker inventory is KC130 which are Probe and KC30 aka A330 MRTT with the older KC135 having retired. The MRTT is duel system with a centerline boom and wing mounted Drogue pods. As such all of Singapore’s Tankers are Probe and Drogue. With a Secondary Boom capacity on the KC30.

The other case pointed to was Finland whose Air Force I don’t think has any Tankers. Boom or otherwise, and would be reliant on “Borrowing” tankers form other nations.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

If they got it, while UAE and Saudi can't, then I don't know how the Gulf Kingdoms will react. Thai's at present time is not the same as Thai's during Cold War.

Thai's now days even more in bed with China. If somehow they still got F-35, not only Gulf Kingdoms but even Jakarta will decide to go take much more business with Eurozone.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

If they got it, while UAE and Saudi can't, then I don't know how the Gulf Kingdoms will react. Thai's at present time is not the same as Thai's during Cold War.

Thai's now days even more in bed with China. If somehow they still got F-35, not only Gulf Kingdoms but even Jakarta will decide to go take much more business with Eurozone.
They're dreaming. How are they going to pay to acquire and operate them? I would strongly suspect that the US wouldn't agree to such a sale because of the security risk.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
How are they going to pay to acquire and operate them? I would strongly suspect that the US wouldn't agree to such a sale because of the security risk.
When I read the article, I'm kind find a dejavu on thinking. The Thai AF chief simply said the price of F-35 will be cheaper then Gripen E. The kind of thinking that only talk on procurement cost and not sustainment costs. Why that kind of thinking prevalence with some SEA nations, especially the top brass? This kind of thinking is Political motivate and not technical users motivate.

In the end I will be surprised if US even consider Thailand, with Thai still practically under military rule and increasingly in bed with China. Like you said Thai increasingly become security risk for US, unlike Thai in the past.
 
Top