boring thread

[jtcohen]

I'd imagine they would be looking at the C model with an updated electronics/commo package suited to thier C4 net.

Why they choose the F-15 is beyond my logic, already more then 15 years old, I'd have gone with a Grippen lease, 18 should do it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Singapore has chosen F-15 as Next Gen Fighter

I'd imagine they would be looking at the C model with an updated electronics/commo package suited to thier C4 net.

Why they choose the F-15 is beyond my logic, already more then 15 years old, I'd have gone with a Grippen lease, 18 should do it.

Singapore is rated as a "gold alpha" weapons buyer, another words they're considered highly diligent and an influence buyer to other countries. I would suspect that they have some very clear reasons as to why they made their choice.

Rafale continues to be the aviation worlds version of the Leclerc. It's a flying orphan. The unfortunate comments made by Dassault won't do them any help in selling equipment in Asia either. Sore losers should not make comments which can be perceived as racist. One would have thought that they learnt that lesson after the idiotic comment they made about Indias decision to go with Boeing rather than Airbus.

Both Janes and Defence World have actually done a very good synopsis on why Rafale is failing in the market.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Singapore has chosen F-15 as Next Gen Fighter

Perhaps after all these years they can finally match Japan's air superiority capability, just an issue of national pride? Who knows...

why? Japan has a different threat matrix. Look at the requirements, it was a strike platform - not air to air. Why would Singapore even need to match Japans air superiority capability? Look at the geo-political influences. Japan has a larger balanced force because she has a vastly different threat. Singapore is a maritime protector due to her economy. Her profile is very close to Israel (who interestingly enough was responsible for helping to establish and profile Singapores defence force structure in the early years) They still have very very strong links at a military technology level. I think it makes far more sense to get the Strike version of the Eagle due to technology links, than to get a plane that would end up similar in capability to Malaysias Hornets or the Australian HUG-Bugs.

But it would be the last choice I'd make, F/A-18C mucho better if you need two engines.

again why? the Hornet C's are no longer in production and if anything, that means that any second hand stocks would have aircraft being subjected to centre barrel fatigue issues as they're high hours and going to be second hand.

On top of this, the Hornet has never hit the 2nd stage bid requirements of any recent run offs. It obviously doesn't suit any of the other countries who have recent tenders up for bid.

I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would consider a second hand Hornet C when the F-15 has been modifed by alpha air forces such as Japan and Israel who are very fussy users.

 

[Totoro]

Re: Singapore has chosen F-15 as Next Gen Fighter

While it's impossible to tell on purchase by purchase basis what went on and why one platform was chosen over another in the broad scheme of things history has shown that more often than not such purchases are determinted by political pressure and/or corruption, rather than by true advantages of one system over another. Examples are everywhere, US has done it in international market, French have done it, both US and french companies have done it on their own home markets. It's just the natural way such purchases are done, even if viewed as unfair by some. US has just more political/economy leverage than france does, that's how things are.

Also, it was silly of french to make such comments. Yes, chances are they were right but you just don't come out and say it, it's not making prudent business. Good luck for them indians didn't take it seriously, buying 43 airbuses few days ago.

gf0012, didn't know as many as 70 raptors are flying by now, that's pretty impressive. Do you happen to have the exact number? They're all in operational testing? Is the december 2005 still the target date for operational service?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Singapore has chosen F-15 as Next Gen Fighter

While it's impossible to tell on purchase by purchase basis what went on and why one platform was chosen over another in the broad scheme of things history has shown that more often than not such purchases are determinted by political pressure and/or corruption, rather than by true advantages of one system over another. Examples are everywhere, US has done it in international market, French have done it, both US and french companies have done it on their own home markets.

that's true enough, but IMO, having dealt with French, American, German, UK, Polish, Singaporean, Israeli, Australian and Spanish vendors - the Singaporeans are the most scrupulous of them all. They are savage on proper process.

Also, it was silly of french to make such comments. Yes, chances are they were right but you just don't come out and say it, it's not making prudent business. Good luck for them indians didn't take it seriously, buying 43 airbuses few days ago.

It almost backfired though, as the contract was held over while fancy diplomatic shuffles took place. One would have thought that the French would have learnt their lesson there. They've sullied their sportsmanship by bitching about Greece, Sth Korea, India and Singapore. Thats very poor form.

gf0012, didn't know as many as 70 raptors are flying by now, that's pretty impressive. Do you happen to have the exact number? They're all in operational testing? Is the december 2005 still the target date for operational service?

AFAIK there are 10 mules, 2 full squadrons (42 aircraft) and half a squadron in a flyaway state. November is still supposed to be secure AFAIK. Highsea would have more up to date info, but he appears to have gone AWOL.

 

[PLA2025]

Re: Singapore has chosen F-15 as Next Gen Fighter

Next Gen fighter? the F-15?

my goodness, the F-15 was released as 3rd generation fighter and was not fully electronically outfitted unlike the F-16 back in the 1970's. Even the F-15C is not most advanced air superiority fighter anymore, especially with the appearance of the Russian Flanker jets especially the Su-35. The first F-15 roled out in the mid 1970's and entered service in 1978 in the USAF. Singapore should rather seek for the EF2000 Tyhoon or F/A-18E Super Hornet instead of any F-15s. China might also offer the J-10A (F-10) to Singapore later to support the current F-16C and D squadrons.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Singapore has chosen F-15 as Next Gen Fighter

Singapore should rather seek for the EF2000 Tyhoon or F/A-18E Super Hornet instead of any F-15s.

Why would they when they've already rejected both platforms earlier as part of this requirements assessment. The deal is done. Read the official response as to why the Typhoon was rejected.

China might also offer the J-10A (F-10) to Singapore later to support the current F-16C and D squadrons.

Highly unlikely when Singapore is looking at JSF. Why go for a plane that is in evolutionary terms a generation in decline? Read the reasons for the F-15 acquisition and you'll start to see why a J-10 buy up is not on the cards.

 

[PLA2025]

Singapore looking for the JSF? Are you serious?

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?

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!

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.

MiG-21/J-7 instead of a J-10A?

Common be serous!

The J-10A has better flight dynamics than any the F-16 in service but less sophisticated in electronical outfit and weapon systems compared to the EF2000 and Super Hornets. Many experts outside China believe that the J-10 (F-10) (around 27 mio. US$) could pose as a counterpart in the weapons trade to the F-16C and F-16D which cost around 30 - 40 mio. US$. 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. 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.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Singapore looking for the JSF? Are you serious?

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[PLA2025]

Re: Singapore has chosen F-15 as Next Gen Fighter

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.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Singapore has chosen F-15 as Next Gen Fighter

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[PLA2025]

Re: Singapore has chosen F-15 as Next Gen Fighter

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!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Singapore has chosen F-15 as Next Gen Fighter

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.

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"

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.

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.

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)

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.

 

[nevidimka]

Like Aussie Digger, I disagree with what guppy said above. I would like to explain why.

Since the arrival of the E-2C AWACS more than 20 years ago, Singapore no longer thinks in terms of plane vs plane contest. At a seminar in Feb 2007, Singapore's chief defence scientist stated that Singapore's goal was to:

(i) acquire capability rather than hardware; and
(ii) to invest in key technologies that ensure a clear lead.

IMHO, the goal of the RSAF is to render any notional opponent deaf and blind via EW and strike at them from a far. Therefore, the F-15SG purchase was not to enable RSAF to face off against the Su-30MKM/F-18D in WVR combat.

Let me cite some developments and place them n the correct context to support my argument above:

1. Israel and the US have demonstrated the importance of dominance of the electromagnetic space, in Bekka Valley in 1982 and in Gulf War I and II. Hence, Singapore's chief defence scientist's concern with electromagnetic space.

2. Singapore cannot afford and does not have access to F-22. Our fighters do not have a significant advantage against an Su-30MKM/F-18D in a WVR battle. Hence the focus on EW, BVR combat and stand off strike:
-the Aug 07 SP and July 08 SP cited in the previous post gives a clear indication of Singapore's improved capability in BVR combat and stand off strike.

3. And we also cannot afford to buy the different types of aircraft with the same or similar capabilities. Each aircraft type (the F-16, F15 and F-35) must play a district role - so that they are carrying the correct ordinance for efficient air tasking.

3.1 The block 52+ F-16s acquisition in 2004 gave Singapore a stronger capability EW and specifically in SEAD (rumored to have a configuration similar to the Israeli F-16I, with Israeli avionics and other kit).

3.2 The F-15SG gives the RSAF improved capabilities in terms of:

(i) time on station (for offensive and defensive counter air) and loiter;
(ii) an increase in combat radius, thereby gaining a deep strike capability; and
(iii) improved informational awareness of the electronic order of battle.

4. The key technology enabler is AESA. IMO, the long term developmental goal is to make the F-15SG an extension of the G550 CAEW (click on the link to see the 2008 brochure)- it just happens to be able to engage in counter air operations while it loiters (all the while providing better informational awareness for all in the battle group).

I think this post is well misinformed if you think that the SU 30 class will drop out of the skies at BVR ranges for fun because the F15SG has AESA,EW,and BVR weapons.
Make no mistake the SU 30 class is capable to be upgraded further with AESA which is a matter of time which will then negate the AESA effect. Also the Su 30 Class does not go into a fight without adequate counter measure. It has some of the modern EW suite which includes the Sortbitsya jammer. Israeli or not,I do not believe the Israeli ever went up against latest Russian jammers in the mid east. They are always fighting a russian plane 2 to 3 level lower than what they are capable of.

And when you have AWACS in an attacking group, AESA or not, the AWACS will see you b4 you see it.

And I dont believe you will not break a sweat when you have an R 77 racing the skies towards you.

 

[OPSSG]

Pt 1. The SU 30 class is capable to be upgraded further with AESA which... will then negate the AESA effect.

Pt 2. Also the Su 30 Class... has some of the modern EW suite which includes the Sortbitsya jammer...

Pt 3. And when you have AWACS in an attacking group, AESA or not, the AWACS will see you b4 you see it.

Pt 4. And I dont believe you will not break a sweat when you have an R 77 racing the skies towards you.

nevidimka what you say makes a lot of sense - if it was a one to one air exercise, where the intention is to test the ability of a single plane versus another. I'll even concede that in a one-to-one scenario, the Su-30MKM is a match in terms of its air frame, engine technology and its air-to-air missile technology to an F-16 or F-15.

Please note that I did not say that R77 is not comparable to American air-to-air missile technology. I also did not say that the Sortbitsya jammer is second rate.

However, I think you are choosing to interpret what I say selectively (and in a wrong way) to justify your argument.

NB. Remember, I'm just making an argument on the importance of a nation's focus on utilizing a particular type of technology to achieve it's goals. I did not even say that Singapore will win in a war (employing this type of technology) against a notional opponent. I'm merely saying the it is buying and developing particular technologies to enable it to fight a notional opponent.

[For discussion sake, I'll just use the points raised by you to provide a rebuttal. This is not a personal attack - so let's discuss this in good spirit.]


Pt 3: AWAC Extends Radar Range
1.1 Let me begin with addressing Point 3 first. Your must agree that Singapore is currently the only country in ASEAN with AWACS. This means according to your argument, the Singapore F-16 or F-15 (SG Plane), supported by an AWAC, knows the range, bearing and altitude of a notional opponent's aircraft (Red Plane) before it is seen.

1.2 So what does a SG Plane do, once it is fore-warned? Your answer must be the SG Plane tries to intercept at a good shooting position, altitude and speed (to ensure that Red Plane is in a no-escape zone).

1.3 So what are the odds for a Red Plane vs a SG Plane? It must be poorer - right?

1.4 Do other air forces in ASEAN have operational AWACS in 2008/2009? Ans: No one else has them yet. And only when others have AWACS can we assume parity of technology.


Pt 1: AESA Extends Radar Range
2.1 As you said the Su-30MKM does not have AESA at this moment.

2.2 Would you agree that until the Su-30MKM is upgraded, its radar is not a match for the F-15SG's? Ans: Only when the Su-30MKM has AESA radar can we assume parity of technology.

2.3 As I explained before in another post AESA radar beams are harder to detect. The F-15SG is likely to see any Red Plane first.

2.4 If the F-15SG can see Su-30MKM before it can see the F-15SG, would the F-15SG be likely to shoot first? Ans: Most likely.


Pt 2: Modern EW Suites Make a Difference

3.1 I agree with you that we cannot know for sure that any EW suite will successfully until it is tested in battle. However, we both agree that modern EW suites do make a difference.

3.2 Would you agree that Malaysia a consumer of modern EW products and not an inventor of it? Ans: Malaysia is a consumer of modern EW products.

3.3 Would you also agree that the purchasing decision for an aircraft in Malaysia is made by a politician? Ans: Malaysian politicians call the shots unless there are loud protests.

3.4 How is the EW suite purchase decision made in Singapore? Ans: Singapore in 2005 took a considered view before buying. It's made by a team of DSTO procurement managers/scientists in Singapore (to evaluate the merits of each technology proposed).

3.5 The chief defence scientist has pointed out the importance of EW to Singapore. Is it is likely that any a team of scientists in Singapore are working on this to improve what Singapore buys? Ans: Most likely.

3.6 If Singapore invests in adapting the EW suite to local signatures. Is it likely that such EW suites (bought and integrated by defence scientists) will be more effective? Ans: Most likely.


Pt 4: R 77 racing the skies towards SG Plane

4.1 I would agree that any SG pilot will be sweating if a R 77 racing the skies towards SG Plane.

4.2 Would the SG Plane have taken a shot (with his AIM120C-5/7 or the AIM 9X) either first or in return?

4.3 Just as you mentioned, there are electronic counter measures against missiles. Ans: Any SG Plane under attack by an R 77 would be equipped with counter measures. Ironically, the SG pilot will have a greater problem dealing with an AIM120C-5 fired by an F-18D, as its the same technology used by us.

4.4 Would you think Sg pilots are well trained to employ such measures? Especially since we are paying US$100 to US$200 million to train them (to learn the right tactics specific to the F-15) and to provide them with the necessary equipment and services in the US.

4.5 The costs incurred by Singapore (with the cost of the F-15SGs - at more than US$80 m each) is over US$2 b (for 24 F-15SG & the missiles). Malaysia spent US$900 m (for 18 Su-30MKMs & a ticket to space for 1 guy)? For 2x the money - how can DSTO justify these investments - if they are not at least 5 to 10% better than other choices available?

Post Script: The Su-30's current Bars NO11m radar will never have:
(i) the reliability of AESA on the F-15SG;
(ii) the range of AESA on the F-15SG; and
(iii) the low probability of intercept features present in AESA radar

 

[nevidimka]

nevidimka what you say makes a lot of sense - if it was a one to one air exercise, where the intention is to test the ability of a single plane versus another. I'll even concede that in a one-to-one scenario, the Su-30MKM is a match in terms of its air frame, engine technology and its air-to-air missile technology to an F-16 or F-15.

Please note that I did not say that R77 is not comparable to American air-to-air missile technology. I also did not say that the Sortbitsya jammer is second rate.

However, I think you are choosing to interpret what I say selectively (and in a wrong way) to justify your argument.

NB. Remember, I'm just making an argument on the importance of a nation's focus on utilizing a particular type of technology to achieve it's goals. I did not even say that Singapore will win in a war (employing this type of technology) against a notional opponent. I'm merely saying the it is buying and developing particular technologies to enable it to fight a notional opponent.

[For discussion sake, I'll just use the points raised by you to provide a rebuttal. This is not a personal attack - so let's discuss this in good spirit.]


Pt 3: AWAC Extends Radar Range
1.1 Let me begin with addressing Point 3 first. Your must agree that Singapore is currently the only country in ASEAN with AWACS. This means according to your argument the Singapore F-16 or F-15 (SG Plane), supported by an AWAC know the range, bearing an altitude of a notional opponent's aircraft (Red Plane) before it is seen.

1.2 So what does a SG Plane do, once it is fore-warned? Your answer must be the SG Plane gets it tries to intercept at a good shooting position, altitude and speed (to ensure that Red Plane is in a no-escape zone).

1.3 So what are the odds for a Red Plane vs a SG Plane?

1.4 When are other air forces in ASEAN likely to have operational AWACS in place? Please name a year. So we can assume parity of technology at that time.


Pt 1: AESA Extends Radar Range
2.1 As you said the Su-30MKM does not have AESA at this moment.

2.2 Would you agree that until the Su-30MKM is upgraded, its radar is not a match for the F-15SG's? When is an upgrade likely to occur? (So we can assume parity of technology at that time)

2.3 As I explained before in another post AESA radar beams are harder to detect. Is it possible for F-15SG to see any Red Plane first?

2.4 If the F-15SG can see Su-30MKM before it can see the F-15SG, would the F-15SG be likely to shoot first?


Pt 2: Modern EW Suites Make a Difference

3.1 I agree with you that we cannot know for sure that any EW suite will successfully until it is tested in battle. However, we both agree that modern EW suites do make a difference.

3.2 Would you agree that Malaysia a consumer of modern EW products and not an inventor of it?

3.3 Would you also agree that the purchasing decision for an aircraft in Malaysia is made by a politician?

3.4 How is the EW suite purchase decision made in Singapore? It's made by a DSO scientist in Singapore, because Singapore takes a considered view before buying.

3.5 The chief defence scientist has pointed out the importance of EW to Singapore. Do you think there is it is likely that any a team of scientists in Singapore are working on this to improve what Singapore buys and that Singapore will buy the best that we can afford?

3.6 If Singapore invests in adapting the EW suite to local signatures. Is it likely that such EW suites (bought and integrated by defence scientists) will be more effective?


Pt 4: R 77 racing the skies towards SG Plane

4.1 I would agree that any SG pilot will be sweating if a R 77 racing the skies towards SG Plane.

4.2 Would the SG Plane have taken a shot (with his AIM120C-5/7 or the AIM 9X) either first or in return?

4.3 Just as you mentioned, there are electronic counter measures against missiles. Do you think the SG Plane under attack by an R 77 would be equipped with counter measures? Would you think Sg pilots are trained to employ such measures?

Nice argument, but please do not mistaken my response as a SG vs MAF, coz I mentioned a Su 30 class aircraft, not SU 30 MKM. Su 30 class is being used by CHina, Malaysia, Indonesia, India and possibly Vietnam.

Its true SG is only nation to be using AWACS at this time, hence the advantage. But a Su 30 equipped with a BARS radar is also able to link up to each other securely and become AWACS themselves, and when equipped with anti Radiation missile is able to target an opposing AWACS.
Its all relative to how efficient use of tactics are used by SG compared to an opposing AF that has these capabilities.

Having AESA is great an all, but 1 thing about the Bars radar is that its very powerfull, and very hard to jam due to its significant burn through ability in a high ECM environment. And if a SG plane does see an enemy plane 1st with its AESA i belive the right choice is to take that 1st shot.


Regarding ECM, again, the Russian latest ECM's are good. I wont reply on your query of Mysia politician making decisions on ECM, as this is not a SG vs Mysia thread and I dont think that question is logical.


And I only mentioned R 77 because your previous post talked about BVR combat which meant AMRAAM, n gave the impression that the AMRAAM is the end game of all. Like there is no BVR weapons fielded by the other side of the world weapons manufacturer. Soon R77 will morph into BVRAAM and also use AESA seekers to defeat RWR tracking it as those developments are well advancing in Russia.

AMRAAM's kill ratio and fame came from parts of the world where the enemy country last updated their air force in the 80's? with 80's export technology and hardly any usefull ECM on board even if there were onboard in the 1st place.

 

[OPSSG]

Yes I agree (It is not a SG vs MAF arguement). I am very impressed with the Russian Su-30 (especially with its advanced aerodynamic design). The Russians design airplanes very well, but their avionics and engines are not as competitive, in comparison. I like the Su-30's Bars radar (is reported to be able to track 20 enemy targets and engage the 8 most dangerous simultaneously) and I think its a great multi-role fighter that is only going to get better. That is the nature of defence procurement.

Both Singapore and Malaysia spend and the sellers win!

Post Script:
1. IMO, the SU-30 is an impressive multi-role plane design at an affordable price. I don't think anyone disputes that. In comparison to the F-15SG, the Sukhois only lose out in avionics, engine reliability and in the range of weapons offered.

2. Modern BVR combat (with the AMRAAM D and Meteor in the pipeline) don't make dog fighting obsolete, they just make it less likely. With off-bore-sight, high agility missiles, dog fighting becomes much more lethal for everyone. Weapons like these become equalizers between highly maneuverable aircraft and less maneuverable competitors. While the high maneuverability found in the Su-30 is still very worthwhile - it is simply not as decisive as it once was.

3. With regards to modern jammers found on the SU-30, which is reportedly able to "cause more than a 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 AMRAAM kill probability", I would quote this response by "38", "Abraham Gubler" and "Ozzy Blizzard" on the AMRAAM ability to defeat the jammer found on the SU-30 and posted elsewhere:

Jamming resistance is greatly improved by using monopulse radar seeker. Monopulse radar seeker usually form several polarized beams at one pulse. Filters can be inserted to remove any signal that is either unpolarized, or polarized only in one direction. In order to confuse such a system, the jamming signal would have to duplicate the polarization of the signal as well as the timing, but since the aircraft with DRFM jammer receives only one lobe, determining the precise polarization of the signal is difficult...

The active radar seeker on AMRAAM works only in terminal stage and the light up of the active seeker is pretty short in less than 1 min... The beauty of monopulse radar seeker is not only to be difficult to jam but also, in case of successful jamming, it can seamlessly switch to “Home on jam” mode, which means the jammer itself will provide illumination for the AMRAAM to home in if its own signal being jammed.

As Abraham pointed out you need to have a good understanding of the threat system before deception jamming can be effective, and ECCM is one of the fastest advancing area's in AAM development. AIM-120D & meteor are going to be hell to fool with contemporary tech. Additionally deception jamming always has an fundamental flaw, if the missile realizes its being spoofed the EM source will simply make the target more visible.

Also the hideously complicated, rapid and random frequency modulation utilized by LPI AESA radars makes analyzing and the EM signature and returning something to spoof the radar virtually impossible with current tech. The random frequency modulation means unless your transmitting through out the Band you probably wont be on the exact same frequency, and if you broadcasting that loudly ESM gear will geo-locate the source quick smart.

Deception or seduction is the way to defeat active homing BVR but as a technique is heavily reliant on having good intel of the threat. The Israelis are not selling jammers to defeat AMRAAM and unless the Russians can get their hands on an actual seeker will just be working from a theortical base. The same can not be said for ADDER which compromised years (over a decade) ago. Also AESA radars can have PITBULL support modes where they illuminate the target for the actively homing missile at terminal engagement.

AFAIK it takes more than getting your hands on the seeker. The hardware is not the point, its the algorithms that govern the way the missile thinks which determine its ECCM vs deception gear. It takes more than getting your hands on a seeker to figure that out. IIRC one of the primary reasons the Israelis went ahead with Derby was the fact that the US would not release the codes that govern AMRAAM, and i have no doubt they took apart a few seekers trying to figure out what made them tick. They still had to develop their own system. I guess having the missile with software installed is a different kettle of fish to understanding it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Nice argument, but please do not mistaken my response as a SG vs MAF, coz I mentioned a Su 30 class aircraft, not SU 30 MKM. Su 30 class is being used by CHina, Malaysia, Indonesia, India and possibly Vietnam.

Its true SG is only nation to be using AWACS at this time, hence the advantage. But a Su 30 equipped with a BARS radar is also able to link up to each other securely and become AWACS themselves, and when equipped with anti Radiation missile is able to target an opposing AWACS.
Its all relative to how efficient use of tactics are used by SG compared to an opposing AF that has these capabilities.

Russian data-link technology as currently fitted to the SU-30 is not particularly capable. The Link 16 the SingAF will use is a vastly superior system and this was demonstrated to the Indians quite succinctly in their recent Red Flag visit.

Modern sensing capability was also lacking in the Indian SU-30, hence the rapid introduction of a Litening AT capability onto the 6x aircraft they deployed to Red Flag.

Again, the Singaporean F-15SG will be using Sniper XR targetting pods. A generation beyond even Litening AT...

As to the respective fighter radars, if you go by the rather asinine "bigger equals more capable" Air Power Australia type theory, the advantage goes to the F-15SG once again because the APG-63 has a physically bigger radar array, with a greater radar module count.

The F-15SG also features an AESA array, with module technology derived from the "5th Generation" APG-79 AESA (originally developed for Boeing's X-32 JSF demonstrator and now fitted to the Block II Super Hornet). Again a significant advantage over the PESA BARS radar system.

The idea that fighters will somehow equal the radar range and capability of an AEW&C aircraft is nonsense however. An AEW&C is more about battlespace command than pure sensing capability, though it obviously has sensors far more capable than any mere fighter sized fire control radar. I would suggest even the most capable pilot/wso is going to be rather busy with their own fight, to be commanding a Blue force in battle. There IS a reason why an AEW&C aircraft, features multiple tactical consoles, for multiple operators...

Having AESA is great an all, but 1 thing about the Bars radar is that its very powerfull, and very hard to jam due to its significant burn through ability in a high ECM environment. And if a SG plane does see an enemy plane 1st with its AESA i belive the right choice is to take that 1st shot.

Having a big powerful, active radar system is great. Especially if an aircraft (like the F-15SG for instance) is equipped with a DRFM EW system...

As for radar power, AESA allows significantly greater radar power per module than earlier generation MESA and PESA type technologies.

One of the reasons it is considered so important...

Regarding ECM, again, the Russian latest ECM's are good. I wont reply on your query of Mysia politician making decisions on ECM, as this is not a SG vs Mysia thread and I dont think that question is logical.

As opposed to the West's EW capability?

And I only mentioned R 77 because your previous post talked about BVR combat which meant AMRAAM, n gave the impression that the AMRAAM is the end game of all. Like there is no BVR weapons fielded by the other side of the world weapons manufacturer. Soon R77 will morph into BVRAAM and also use AESA seekers to defeat RWR tracking it as those developments are well advancing in Russia.

Hang on, you're contradicting yourself a bit there. Now AESA defeats RWR, somehow? Apparently it wasn't that important before...

AMRAAM's kill ratio and fame came from parts of the world where the enemy country last updated their air force in the 80's? with 80's export technology and hardly any usefull ECM on board even if there were onboard in the 1st place.

Ah, the famous AMRAAM Pk stories. Nothing like rules of engagement to get in the way of clearly defining a weapons PK is there?

Also, why an AIM-120A's "Pk" is relevent to a Country purchasing AIM-120C-7 missiles for use from it's aircraft is beyond me. Have there been no improvements in the 6+ iterations of the weapon system, since the "A" model was the "latest thing"?

 

[Red]

Heya. Interesting thread. Here`s my take on it. Pardon the nationalistic babble; it is not intended.

Platform versus platform comparison is`nt holistic. What are the pilots of Singapore`s 74 F16 Blk 52 C/D plus(including 12 leased Blk 52s currently in the US for training from Peace Carvin 2. Not sure option to buy has been exercised) and 45 upgraded F5 S/T(Amraam capable) and Singapore`s AEW & C Hawkeyes and now the new Phalcon AEW & C Gulfstreams going to do? Watch the show while 24 F15SGs and 18 Su-30 mkms dish it out?

This is no different than a recent argument I`ve read which bizzarely pits the Su-30s against an AAW frigate like the Formidable. I am sure the rest of the RSAF will sit idly by and watch how good the Asters are.

The skies will be swarming with more than 140 RSAF combat jets all linked to one another bristling with Amraams C5/C7s, Pythons 4/5s, AIM-9x, Derbies,etc; backed by I-hawks, Rapiers and Aster 15s/30s in the adjacent water-ways.

Anyway, good read from all.Cheers.

 

[Triumf]

Vietnam Air defense (belong to Air and Air Defense force Command) equipments by 28 Feb 2011:
- 2 S-300PMU1 SAM systems with 12 launchers and 72 missiles.
- 24 Pechora-2M SAM systems with 72 to 96 launchers and about 1500 missiles.
- 24 Volga-M SAM systems with 96 to 144 launchers and about 1000 missiles.
- 12 Strela-10M3 launchers and 200 missiles.
- 30 Strela-2M manportable launchers and 200 missiles
- 20 Igla-S manportable launchers and 200 missiles.
- 54 ZSU-23-4M SPAAA
- 100+ 37mm AAA
- 100+ 57mm AAA