Republic of Singapore Air Force Discussions

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Aussie Digger]

Why would India conduct one sided exercises for its air force with the US? Why would the U.S. waste its time likewise? Or do one sided joint exercises happen all the time?

For one thing, the USAF has not enjoyed close military ties to India and is trying to develop such.

Decimating the IAF in the FIRST exercise by employing the USAF's full capability is not going to be particularly helpful in achieving that goal is, it?

Nor is it in the USA's own interest to demonstrate it's full capability unless already at war.

Secondly they were conducting dissimilar air combat training, they were training to fight against aircraft different to their own, but ones that lack the capability of the USAF Eagles and therefore why reveal the Eagle's full capability, it wouldn't help the IAF train for it's likely operational role?

Do "one sided" exercises occur all the time? No, only mostly. "Blue force" normally always "wins" in the end. However the purpose is to train to IMPROVE your force not to prove your force is superior to anyone...

 

[Red]

I'd rather get more JSOWs and JDAMs. JSOW is 1/3 the cost of JASSM/SLAM-ER.

Whilst JASSM may have more range, the unpowered JSOW standoff ranges are already in excess of any air defence system in inventories across the region (including the SA-10s of the chinese if one takes into account powered JSOWs).

With the same budget, I can hit 3 times more targets with JSOWs than with JASSMs. I'd purchase JASSMs only if there are very high value, super heavily defended targets worth hitting.

In the Singapore context, can't actually see any potential target that is worth a JASSM instead of a JSOW.

In fact, JDAMs (the cheapest) will still form the mainstay of munitions. Each JDAM costs 1/15 the cost of a JSOW. That means I can hit 45 times more targets with JDAMs than with JASSMs. 1800 JDAMs = 1800 JDAM targets = 40 JASSM = 40 JASSM targets.

Can understand why the Australians bought the JASSM though. They are a lot further away from their expected potential targets, the additional range comes in handy and they are rich.

How effective is a JSOW compared to a powered cruise missile? Especially to a networked air force which emphasizes hitting hard, fast and accurately. Especially in view of the possible purchases of SAMs in the region. Therein lies your answer. Also, stand-off-missiles will be very much a part of the future inventories of modern air-forces. A modern western air-force would most likely have a variety of weapons; JDAMs, JSOWs or alternative versions of it and definitely cruise missiles. The latter confers a wide range abilities and therefore the flexibility in getting the outcomes you want.

In addition, I fully expect the RMAF and Indo air forces to get a few in the future as well to equip the Sukhois.

The F-15SGs were not bought with just regional neighbours in mind. Same with Malaysia`s Sukhois. Im sure you are able to discern the naunced rationale behind some of Singapore`s and Malaysia`s purchases. At any rate, in the event of a conflict with Jakarta or with several countries simultaneously, the Sla m-ers and JASSMs would be far more effective than JSOWs in being able to hit further and faster and possibly more accurate as well. Also, I do not know why you`d think that the distance to Indonesian Java or other key cities would be any less further for Singapore as compared to Australia.

I hardly think cost is an issue with Singapore with regards to procuring Slam-er or Jassms; especially with Singapore`s style of buying everything in batches so as not to alarm her immediate neighbours . You are talking about an air force that has stated its desire to purchase as many as 80 NGF fighter jets with associated weapons.

 

[tphuang]

I'd rather get more JSOWs and JDAMs. JSOW is 1/3 the cost of JASSM/SLAM-ER.

Whilst JASSM may have more range, the unpowered JSOW standoff ranges are already in excess of any air defence system in inventories across the region (including the SA-10s of the chinese if one takes into account powered JSOWs).

With the same budget, I can hit 3 times more targets with JSOWs than with JASSMs. I'd purchase JASSMs only if there are very high value, super heavily defended targets worth hitting.

In the Singapore context, can't actually see any potential target that is worth a JASSM instead of a JSOW.

In fact, JDAMs (the cheapest) will still form the mainstay of munitions. Each JDAM costs 1/15 the cost of a JSOW. That means I can hit 45 times more targets with JDAMs than with JASSMs. 1800 JDAMs = 1800 JDAM targets = 40 JASSM = 40 JASSM targets.

Can understand why the Australians bought the JASSM though. They are a lot further away from their expected potential targets, the additional range comes in handy and they are rich.

yeah, but if you use the powered version of JSOW, it will be more expensive. The cost goes up anytime you add a motor to it. As for JASSM, it sure has had its share of failed tests.

 

[Aussie Digger]

yeah, but if you use the powered version of JSOW, it will be more expensive. The cost goes up anytime you add a motor to it. As for JASSM, it sure has had its share of failed tests.

Not since JASSM was modified after the early problems were identified...

A series of flight tests are ongoing however we will know by March whether the weapon will continue or not.

I suspect it will, with over 600 misssiles in the USAF inventory already...

 

[SGMilitary]

Rsaf F-15sg

As mentioned by one of SAF key General,

The entire SAF is moving towards long range precision strike capabilities.

I'm sure the RSAF will purchase between 24 to 48 more F-15SG.

Please be informed that each fighter squadron in RSAF has 24 jets.

As for the weapons fit, JSOW is capable enough for now.

I'm sure the RSAF will be equipping her Eagles with domestically developed

weapons by DSTA.

Thank you.


Best Regards.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Aussie Digger]

That leads on to another reason why the F-15 was chosen by both ROK and RSAF.

Whilst existing F-16s can only fire 2 JDAMs (on pylons 3 & 7), the F-15SG is supposed to have pylons stressed to carry as many as 12 JDAMs just on the CFT pylon stations alone. That's not counting other pylons.

http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2006/q1/060216d_nr.html

That's more than 6 times the effectiveness of the F-16. Even the Typhoon has a capability of only 9 (if I remember correctly) flying empty on A2A. The F18E/F has a 2-4 JDAM capability?

That's 288+ target capability for a single 24 F-15K/SG sqn sortie. Easily overlooked except when on the receiving end.

JDAM capability depends on what you wish the aircraft to carry, not number of hardpoints.

JDAM's can be anything from Mk 82/83/84 or BLU-109/110/111.

Aircraft such as the F-16 and F/A-18 series (including Super Hornet) can and do carry the BRU-55 series of "multiple rack" launchers. There is no reason the Super Hornet for instance couldn't carry 12x 500lbs JDAM's if necessary.

RAAF Hornets can already carry 10x Mk 82 bombs as seen here:

http://www.defence.gov.au/acesnorth2006/images/gallery/20060525a/index.htm

So I don't see why JDAM would be too much of a greater issue...

 

[tphuang]

Not since JASSM was modified after the early problems were identified...

A series of flight tests are ongoing however we will know by March whether the weapon will continue or not.

I suspect it will, with over 600 misssiles in the USAF inventory already...

no offense, but I think you are overly optimistic on JASSM. Does it have something to do with Australia buying it?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Aussie Digger]

no offense, but I think you are overly optimistic on JASSM. Does it have something to do with Australia buying it?

And DSTO and ARDU working with Lockheed Martin to help work out the problems...

The JASSM has undertaken 2 sets of flight tests (October and December 2007) since the upgrades have been performed on the weapon system, since the faults were identified and it has passed with flying colours.

It is not yet "in the clear", but things are promising and calls of it being "dead" are a long way from the truth as I understand it...

A pic showing some of the developments, is attached...

 

[F-15 Eagle]

no offense, but I think you are overly optimistic on JASSM. Does it have something to do with Australia buying it?

No the USAF does have 600 JASSM missiles in service there should be more. They do have some reliability problems but they can be fixed.

 

[tphuang]

No the USAF does have 600 JASSM missiles in service there should be more. They do have some reliability problems but they can be fixed.

you do realize that they are still talking it over in congress on whether to axe the program or not, right?

I'm not saying it can't be fixed, but this program is clearly troubled and people probably should go for the more mature SLAM-ER or the less problematic SCALP.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

you do realize that they are still talking it over in congress on whether to axe the program or not, right?

I'm not saying it can't be fixed, but this program is clearly troubled and people probably should go for the more mature SLAM-ER or the less problematic SCALP.

Both offer less capability. JASSM's LO and anti shipping capability will mean very bad news for anyone faceing it, neither SCALP or SLAM-ER offer that combination.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[harryriedl]

Uh, the JASSM doesn't have an anti-ship capability, at least not yet. The Australian participation into the JASSM programme was meant to provide funds to develop JASSM's anti-ship capability.

That's why the US navy went with the SLAM-ER. The anti-ship capability for a missile developed from an anti-ship missile cannot be denied.

Also, its not like SLAM-ERs are missing the target even without LO technologies (which is over-rated where munitions are concerned). If LO and range is an issue, there is always the -86 and -129s.

The US Air Force may have 600 JASSMs in its inventory but it also has a 42% failure rate for those 600 missiles.

The main attraction of the JASSM was meant to be its low cost. That, as with other cruise missile programmes, was a pipe dream.

There is a last-ditch $68m program to fix the JASSM. The outcome of the program should be revealed in the latter half of 2008 which I am optimistic. If the JASSM gets canned, I wonder what the RAAF and the new Rudd Govt is going to do?

SCALP most likely as it works it very LO has an equivalents range

 

[swerve]

SCALP most likely as it works it very LO has an equivalents range

Taurus KEPD-350 seems more likely. It's already integrated on F-18 (for Spain), & was shortlisted along with JASSM after SCALP had been eliminated from the Oz contest.

 

[Aussie Digger]

you do realize that they are still talking it over in congress on whether to axe the program or not, right?

I'm not saying it can't be fixed, but this program is clearly troubled and people probably should go for the more mature SLAM-ER or the less problematic SCALP.

Well the USAF is not going to opt for a European designed standoff missile. Simply not going to happen.

SLAM-ER is equally unlikely for the USAF, but is rather more likely for the RAAF, given it was down-selected, unlike the KEPD-350 which was withdrawn from the competition and of course comes integrated onto the Super Hornet from scratch...

I will not say anything more about JASSM, beyond what I've already said and my belief it will continue and will be fixed.

I also believe it will be in RAAF service in the near future and will serve our needs well...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Uh, the JASSM doesn't have an anti-ship capability, at least not yet. The Australian participation into the JASSM programme was meant to provide funds to develop JASSM's anti-ship capability.

That's why the US navy went with the SLAM-ER. The anti-ship capability for a missile developed from an anti-ship missile cannot be denied.

USN navy needed something now, JASSM's still a while away with less risk. The USN and USAF are 2 very different organizations. Anyway a weapons heritage is secondary to its capability.

Everyone is still trying to get the system operational, so the fact that JASSM doesent have an anti shipping capability now, which is superfluous to its primary role, doesnt indicate much about the systems capability when it is actually going into battle. The hardware is there, the requirement is there, the intent is there, the funds are there, as long as the programme does not get cancelled (and all the latest indications are that it wont) there is no reason that JASSM will not have an anti shipping capability, and when it does it will be one fearsome ship buster.

Also, its not like SLAM-ERs are missing the target even without LO technologies . If LO and range is an issue, there is always the -86 and -129s.

SLAM-ER's are hardly hitting well defended targets, something JASSM was designed to do. Without the reliability problemms the low altitude ingress, LO and passive IR seeker combination will make JASSM a very tough contender for any advanced cruise/anti ship missile defence system, with a much better chance of acheiveing a kill than SLAM-ER, JSOW C, JSOW-ER or whatever.

(which is over-rated where munitions are concerned)

How exactly is LO "overated" for cruise missiles, especially AShM's??? OEF & OIF were hardly challangeing operations from an air power stand point, and just because legacy missiles were hitting targets does not mean they would enjoy the same sucsess when faceing a real IADS??? Its pretty simple really, its all about reaction time. In terms of naval ADS's of the calibur of AEGIS, or even a sov', if you want to penitrate it and hit what your aiming at you have to minimize the time between detection, track, launch and interception to maximize your chances of a hit. The russians achieved this by going supersonic and low altitude, the yanks have gone with LO & passive seekers. The fact is that JASSM's REAL LO will allow it to get very close before the detection to interception sequence starts, and that will be a HUGE improvement over the likes of SLAM-ER when faceing a truely technologically sophistocated opponant.

The US Air Force may have 600 JASSMs in its inventory but it also has a 42% failure rate for those 600 missiles.

The main attraction of the JASSM was meant to be its low cost. That, as with other cruise missile programmes, was a pipe dream.

42% is improveing dramatically IIRC, thats what the boys & girls at LM and the DSTO have been working on.

I was under the impression that JASSM's real apeal lay in its capability rather than its cost, thats why we chose it over Taurus, SLAM-ER and SCALP.

There is a last-ditch $68m program to fix the JASSM. The outcome of the program should be revealed in the latter half of 2008 which I am optimistic. If the JASSM gets canned, I wonder what the RAAF and the new Rudd Govt is going to do?

If it gets canned then we will probably go with SLAM-ER for the minet, its safe and easy. Taurus gives us HUGE range, but we need a shipbuster, preferby one that is compatible with the F35.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted