IMHO the F15 was choosen due to it's "long Legs"against the SH this is logical as RSAF will need them back "in country" if the situation arises and the training facilities provided a plus, and against the Typhoon, AFM ( Jan 2011 issue" Typhoon Transformation")stated, in 2008 started the trails for an air to ground capability, needless to says the E radar is of important criteria. Again, would 24 F15SG ample for now until F35 arrives.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Australia would have offered hornet training facilities if the SH was seriously considered. Add to that, they purchased new hornet simulators in 04 as well. There would have been shared cost advantages.
Australian Government, Department of Defence
The time taken to redeploy from AU would have been way faster than US.
MY = 18 Su-30, ID = 10 Su-27/30. India has a small detachment of Su-30s at nicobar is as well. Vietnam has ~8 Su-27s + 8-12 Su-30Mk2s on order. Chinese a/c would have difficulty reaching SG.
If consider the Amraam-armed F-16s and F-5s in addition to the F-15SG into the rsaf inventory, no reason why the numbers aren't sufficient until 2015-17 period.
Australia would have offered hornet training facilities if the SH was seriously considered. Add to that, they purchased new hornet simulators in 04 as well. There would have been shared cost advantages.
Australian Government, Department of Defence
The time taken to redeploy from AU would have been way faster than US.
MY = 18 Su-30, ID = 10 Su-27/30. India has a small detachment of Su-30s at nicobar is as well. Vietnam has ~8 Su-27s + 8-12 Su-30Mk2s on order. Chinese a/c would have difficulty reaching SG.
If consider the Amraam-armed F-16s and F-5s in addition to the F-15SG into the rsaf inventory, no reason why the numbers aren't sufficient until 2015-17 period.
SGMilitary
New Member
24 F-15SG definitely insufficient. I've read an article that the RSAF may go ahead to procure second batch of 24 F-15SG. As mentioned by RSAF CAF before, RSAF will operate about 60-80 F-15SG in batches depending on the development of JSF.
ID-Forever
New Member
Thanks to RSAF ..... Good decision
It was confirmed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minster of Defence Teo Chee Hean in Parliament that two new pieces of equipment will enter RSAF service. They are namely:
(i) Heron 1 UAV (length of 8.8 metres x wing span of 16.6 metres) to replace the Searcher-class UAV (length of 5 meters x wingspan of 7.6 meters) in service with 128 Squadron (which is part of UAV Command). The Searcher-class UAVs have seen service in Afghanistan.
(ii) SPYDER-SR will replace the 30-year old RAPIER air defence system. The SPYDER-SR comprises of both the surface-to-air Python-5 and Derby missiles.
(i) Heron 1 UAV (length of 8.8 metres x wing span of 16.6 metres) to replace the Searcher-class UAV (length of 5 meters x wingspan of 7.6 meters) in service with 128 Squadron (which is part of UAV Command). The Searcher-class UAVs have seen service in Afghanistan.
Today Online said:
(ii) SPYDER-SR will replace the 30-year old RAPIER air defence system. The SPYDER-SR comprises of both the surface-to-air Python-5 and Derby missiles.
SGMilitary
New Member
It's not a surprised when our DM officially announced the procurement of SPYDER SR and HERON 1 as it has been speculated by other defence sources.
With the plan acquisition of 24 Typhoon by Indonesia, I wonder if the Republic will procure more than just the current 24 F-15SG.
What about anti-ballistic missile capability?
Any update gentlemen?
As Ananda clearly stated it will take the TNI great stride to assimilate the Typhoon, and again news report stated i'ts just speculation, as i stated, 24 F15SG is just a token punch if you really want to have air supremacy or dominance, my personal view. IMHO our F16 force will be aged in next 5 yrs, let alone F5Es.
I believe, in due time, the Flanker force or other 4th Gen fighters will be growing in this region, sorry to bring this up:frown,hope not breahing the rule, i'm not starting F15 vs Sukhoi and does not intent to, but to state my point, an Air to Air fit,with Flankers, an F15 will be out gun per se.
But with a forward defence policy, i personally believe, our ABM is in a back burner. But i would think a dedicated ship with an anti-air, act a an umbrella is a better option combine with Spyder system.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Comparing the F15 v Flanker is exactly what you've done here. We don't allow this because it is nothing more than chest beating contest.
If you don't work in the RSAF air combat group, you won't have the faintest idea of the capability of THEIR F-15SG aircraft, nor even of the Flanker aircraft within the region.
Saying it is "out guned per se" is a complete nonsense. How exactly? Because you've seen pictures of Flankers carrying lots of missiles? I can show you an F-15 "loaded for bear" too if you want.
Carrying the mostest, being the fastest etc, is irrelevant in overall combat terms. There are plenty of discussions on this site already that cover that. Especially in the F-35 thread. I strongly suggest you read some of those discussions and digest them, before making such silly statements again.
Regards,
AD
There is ALOT of doubt over wether Indonesia will actualy buy EF
and who is going to be shooting Ballistic Missiles at Singapore?
I don't think there's any doubt at all. I'm sure it won't happen.
The F15SG was bought because she is more than capable of dealing with the evolving threats in the region in the near future. More importantly, the F15SG fits into a massive networked battle system of sensors and shooters that the SAF will be deploying against any threats which makes the F15SG even more deadlier. When you go against any shooter or sensor, you will be going against the entire system and you would be exposing yourself to possible attacks from any direction, terrain and platform. It is not for nothing that the SAF has been having large scale networked exercises all around the world involving a combination of platforms.
In addition, I think these planes sync well with our closest allies or partners in the region, Australia and the US aiding joint operations.
You would also realise the large number of planes Singapore has as compared to her immediate neighbours and the great efforts committed to ensuring even higher sortie rates.
The F16s (Blk 52s) will not be obsolete in 5 years. I even think there will be some more upgrades mid-way. There have been reports of an unnamed country getting AESAs for F16s. The 49 F5 S/Ts need replacing by 2015-2016 and I bet your last dollar that it will be more F15SGs together with our first F35s. The F16s will be replaced by more F35s thereafter. The RSAF has a well thought out strategy. The Singaporean government whose estimated wealth from her foreign reserves, local funds and sovereign wealth funds is in excess of 700-800 billion USD( and getting richer) has the means to pay her way to get these planes though the ruling party has remained largely frugal.
The Spyder SR system is a nice replacement for the Rapiers. I am eagerly waiting news on the replacement for the upgraded I-Hawks. I have a strange feeling it might be the SAMPT/T Aster 30 missile system.
SGMilitary
New Member
Thanks for your analysis.
I agree with you that there will be more F-15SG, total 60 with the optimum at 80 depending on F-35 developments.
AS for I.HAWK, most likely it will be Aster 30 SAMP/T with block II capability which is under development by MBDA. It was highlighted in a foreign defence journal that our Formidable FFG are equipped with both Aster 15/30 which the RSN is not mentioning it.
I dont think we need the Aster 30 blk 2 which i understand to be an entirely new missile presently. There does not seem to be an immediate need. It might be something good to have albeit in small numbers in the future. i dont think we have much options here in regards to viable replacements for the I-hawks. What are the alternatives which we can integrate into our air defence system? Patriots with the new MSE missile? Aster 30 SAMP/T?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I'd be amazed if Singapore didn't have her eye on further Israeli manufactured air defence systems. Especially considering the relative geographic constraints of Singapore, their stunner and Arrow missile systems in concert with Spyder MR might provide a much higher level of defensive SAM capability than previously available?
You are most certainly correct. The only question is whether these systems are ready and matured enough in time for the I.Hawk to be phased out which will be very soon now.
Stunner looks amazing and has a longer range compared to patriots and Aster 30s.
The information I've seen published says that it's designed to defend against ballistic missiles with a range of 70-250 km. That's not the range of Stunner, it's the range of the missiles it's meant to shoot down. Stunner will have a much shorter range.
Aster 30 Block 1 is supposed to be able to intercept ballistic missiles with a range of up to 600km. I think you'll find it has a much greater range than Stunner.
Stunner: Rafael marketing sheet
It fits between Iron Dome & Arrow. Arrow 2 is reckoned to have a maximum intercept range of about 90km, & maximum intercept altitude of about 50km. But it can intercept ballistic missiles with a range of well over 1000km.
SGMilitary
New Member
Dear Swerve,
Thank you for your input.
It is most likely that the RSAF will procure Aster 30 SAMP/T.
Just wonder when will they replace RBS70 and 35MM AA gun system.
Will they procure the multiple launch version of Mistral S and will they replace the M113 with Terrex AV82?
Any input?
Reading some of the posts just makes me laugh at how poorly thought out they are, especially the ones about the Su-30 v F-15 argument. After reading the entries, I wanted to contribute my own thoughts and feelings so that new posts in this thread will not be just some patriotic banter from some other neighboring country. All the information provided can be found on the web if you bother to look it up.
FACT
1) Singapore is rich, richer than any other country in the region. The government is well-run and led by very smart forward looking people, corruption is also generally very low. Thus it is safe to say that the Ministry of Defense is also very competent and they always think things through from every possible angle before they make decisions. The F-15SG was bought simply because no aircraft which was available can fly further, faster, higher, carry more bombs and provide more value for money with a proven combat record. The Su-30 is cheaper and less advanced, the Rafale and F-18 just couldn't match the F-15 in performance. Thrust vectoring really isn't as effective at BVR then you would like to think it is, it is only nice for airshows and dogfights provided you can even get that close.
2) Singaporeans are generally already well educated and tech savvy, they may lack hardiness and so called "combat-fitness" but i assure you, they learn fast and will adapt to new skills and equipment to a proficiency just as well as or better than anyone in the world. In the area of military aviation, brain power is a hell lot more important than physical ability because technology is such an important factor here.
3) By pure numbers alone, the RSAF has more combat aircraft than any other air force in SEA even with some assets overseas. Every airmen is trained to a very high degree of proficiency both at home and overseas, we don't get invited to Red Flag exercises every year for no reason.
4) The RSAF has an in-flight refueling capability for all the combat a/c it operates and has operated AEW platforms since the 80s. Thailand has only just become the 2nd operator of such platforms in the region. Do not underestimate this capability because it allows the airforce to coordinate all its aircraft and handle threats more efficiently.
5)The RSAF has an exemplary safety record which means more aircraft are available to fly at anyone time with minimal turn around time. Because we operate equipment with ample spares and parts commonality, we don't have much trouble maintaining our platforms. Can Malaysia or Indonesia say the same of their operational readiness? When the Indons bought the Su-30, they couldn't track the aircraft because the russian systems had no compatibility with the western systems they used.
6) Some of the weapons systems do not exist in any of the other inventories of the region eg. AESA, GPS guided munitions, Sniper Pods, Longbow.
Summary: There really is no contest here, every defense journal, publication, report states that the RSAF is the most capable and therefore most powerful Airforce in SEA. All the points listed support that notion and as you can see, it is more than just a platform vs platform argument.
When you bring in the equipment and capabilities of the navy and army, you will also see that as a whole, the Singapore Armed Forces is leap and bounds ahead of any military in the immediate region.
FACT
1) Singapore is rich, richer than any other country in the region. The government is well-run and led by very smart forward looking people, corruption is also generally very low. Thus it is safe to say that the Ministry of Defense is also very competent and they always think things through from every possible angle before they make decisions. The F-15SG was bought simply because no aircraft which was available can fly further, faster, higher, carry more bombs and provide more value for money with a proven combat record. The Su-30 is cheaper and less advanced, the Rafale and F-18 just couldn't match the F-15 in performance. Thrust vectoring really isn't as effective at BVR then you would like to think it is, it is only nice for airshows and dogfights provided you can even get that close.
2) Singaporeans are generally already well educated and tech savvy, they may lack hardiness and so called "combat-fitness" but i assure you, they learn fast and will adapt to new skills and equipment to a proficiency just as well as or better than anyone in the world. In the area of military aviation, brain power is a hell lot more important than physical ability because technology is such an important factor here.
3) By pure numbers alone, the RSAF has more combat aircraft than any other air force in SEA even with some assets overseas. Every airmen is trained to a very high degree of proficiency both at home and overseas, we don't get invited to Red Flag exercises every year for no reason.
4) The RSAF has an in-flight refueling capability for all the combat a/c it operates and has operated AEW platforms since the 80s. Thailand has only just become the 2nd operator of such platforms in the region. Do not underestimate this capability because it allows the airforce to coordinate all its aircraft and handle threats more efficiently.
5)The RSAF has an exemplary safety record which means more aircraft are available to fly at anyone time with minimal turn around time. Because we operate equipment with ample spares and parts commonality, we don't have much trouble maintaining our platforms. Can Malaysia or Indonesia say the same of their operational readiness? When the Indons bought the Su-30, they couldn't track the aircraft because the russian systems had no compatibility with the western systems they used.
6) Some of the weapons systems do not exist in any of the other inventories of the region eg. AESA, GPS guided munitions, Sniper Pods, Longbow.
Summary: There really is no contest here, every defense journal, publication, report states that the RSAF is the most capable and therefore most powerful Airforce in SEA. All the points listed support that notion and as you can see, it is more than just a platform vs platform argument.
When you bring in the equipment and capabilities of the navy and army, you will also see that as a whole, the Singapore Armed Forces is leap and bounds ahead of any military in the immediate region.
Yes, due to Singapore having the biggest economy in SEA and it's policy of deterence, the SAF is the best funded and most capable service in the region, no arguements there from anyone here, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make? And what was that you mentioned in the start of your post about not intending for it to be ''patriotic banter''?
Apart from having much less funds to spare for aircraft procurement, the reason both air arms have smaller fighter fleets is due to a number of reasons -namely because the traditional roles of the RMAF and TNI-AU for several decades was supporting the army's counter insurgency efforts, thus internal not external security was the main focus. The threat perceptions of both countries are also very different from that of Singapore and both have larger operational responsibilities, something that is not helped by the fact that both allocate less for defence, of which a substantial portion is for meeting operational costs, rather than procurement.
The usefulness of thrust vectoring indeed debatable. The reason however Russian designers included it in the Su-30 is because Russian air to air doctrine, for whatever reason, still places great importance in the dog-fight or WVR, so it is not intended solely as a marketing gimmick or to impress onlookers at air shows.
Do you have access to info on the RMAF's and TNI-AU's operational ready rates and the number of hours their fighter pilots fly? Whilst both air arms, on account of having a much smaller operational budget and smaller fighter fleets cannot participate in international exercises with the same regularity and intensity as the RSAF, it would be a mistake to assume they have low operational readiness. Also bear in mind that with regards to the RMAF, which is the most camera/publicity shy of all the 3 MAF services, a lot of the training it conducts, as well as other activities, does not get reported.
If I'm not mistaken, the issue wasn't about ''tracking' the Su-30's but the incompatibility of the Russian radios with those in other TNI-AU aircraft.
The nearest country to Singapore and it's neighbours, that has ballistic missiles is China. In 1992 the TNI announced that it was seriously looking into acquiring Scuds but nothing came out of it, which IMO was a blessing in disguise as it would have been a waste of funds. Very much doubt if any ASEAN country would want to be the first to introduce ballistics missiles into service due to political sensitivities.
Last edited: