YourFatherRegarding weapons integration:
Why would they want to increase the chances of a competitor by allowing their weapons to be integrated to the competitor’s aircraft? During the Korean competition they threatened to deny the Koreans the right and technical assistance to integrate American weapons on the Rafale. I believe that was a major factor the Koreans chose the F-15 over the Rafale. And I think that even if they do the same for Singapore, it would be perfectly reasonable. And while weapons can be integrated to aircraft, its not as simple as just saying ‘integrate’ and it’s done. It’s a much more complex thing than that, something which requires the help of the Americans AND requires substantial cost and TIME as well (we might face integration problems as well, who knows? All these are risk factors which must be taken into consideration). WE will have to foot that. And that is not counting the fact that we will require a WHOLE new set of armaments for the Rafale, which cannot be utilised on the Falcons, NOR the JSF which we’ll get in future. PGMs dont come cheap. It is a very big minus for the Rafale’s chances, something which you dont seem to acknowledge.
Regarding upgrades:
Why do you think the Americans dont upgrade their aircraft as often? What evidence can you show to say that the Rafale will be updated more often?
Regarding the radar:
What I have stated is true. In what way is that pathetic? Just saying ‘pathetic’ is a pretty pathetic way of arguing your case. In fact, with the greater work amount of experience in AESA radars done by Raytheon (dun forget the APG-79, which just entered production, and is also a Raytheon product), and with a working, in operation model flying, AESA is a safer bet on the Eagle than the Rafale.
YourFatherSingapore can buy Rafale and buy american GPS bomb :p
Ok, perhaps they would refuse, another reason to avoid to buy american stuff.
And we would have to incur the additional cost to integrate the weapons, which would be substantial. AND that is IF America allows their weapons to be integrated on the Rafale, which naturally (and reasonably) they won’t.
In addition, the Eagle has a working AESA already, whereas the Rafale’s AESA proposal is still under testing. But I concede that the APG-63V2 is still currently A2A only, and the APG-63V3 with A2G modes is still not ready.
the F-15 ? that plane that will have his production plant in few years ?
It may be out of production, but that would not mean no upgrades would be done. Funny where you get your ideas. It would, however be a trouble when Singapore decides to procure additional airframes to replace the F-5s. We might be forced to place an order early before the line closes.
YourFatherMore PGM ? Well, as long as the rafale has good one, do you think that it would be that important for the eagle ?
Better radar ? Of course, you have all information needed to make that statement, aren’t you ?
Between an american radar and a french-singaporian radar, from a singaporian point of view, the performances wouldn’t mean all.Future upgrade ? For ? The eagle ? When ? where ?
The USAF is studying upgrades to the RWR, with the intention of replacing the ALR-56C with a digitital version. THe APG-63V3 will also replace the APG-70s in the Es, and maybe some Cs. Considering that the F-15E will be in USAF service for a long long time to come, upgrades will be continuous. They ALWAYS keep their aircraft updated in order to keep abreast with the latest threats. The F-15 will not, as many Rafale/Typhoon pushers like to believe, fall into electronics and avionics obsolesence.
With regards to the PGM choice available, the US definitely offers more attractive options, and more importantly, they offer commonality with the F-16 fleet. That is something that should not be underestimated, as buying a whole new line of weapons that would only be compatible with the Rafale, but would not be usable in the F-16s currently, and the JSF in future, is not desirable, to say the least.
YourFatherPerhaps, but what’s done is done. And the only fair thing to do NOW is to compare it with the D model Tomcat. Not with some ‘what-if’ Tomcat. And when compared with the 14D, it HAS sacrificed some aerodynamic performance, but the Navy got an outstanding all-round performer in return. Its strike capability is leagues beyond the Tomcat. Granted, it doesn’t have the super-long range Phoenix now, but the AMRAAM C8 (or is it D?) would bring back a long range missile capability. With its vastly improved avionics, the 14D just doesn’t compare.
YourFatherSHARP has been deployed before, ATFLIR I think so…. son (lol)…
YourFatherIt would be harder to debate the first 4 points, but the last 2 are wrong. The SHornets will get the ATFLIR, which would be on par with the SniperXR pods. It has an IRST function as well. Recce capability comes in the form of the SHARP pod.
YourFatherImpressive to keep the F-14A’s mission readiness rates at 89.2%, but at what cost? How much effort as compared to the Hornet? How much resources did the F-14 maintenance requirements divert from what could go to the F-18? If you wanna bash the Hornet, fine, but at least do it fairly. And maintenance is one point that nobody can argue the Hornets will lose to the Tomcat without damaging his own credibility.
YourFatherThe Aurora is probably a figment of imagination, else why the need for Hyper-X programs and such if the capability to travel at Mach 6 already existed? But there are sure to be other secret aircraft yet to be revealed….
YourFatherIf we knew about them, they wouldn’t be ‘secret’ aircraft, no? But here’s an eample of an ex-secret arcraft – the ‘Bird of Prey’. Which goes to show that other secret aircraft is likely in existance. In fact, there are tacit acknowledgements/reports (check AWST) that a Darkstar successor was tested in Iraqi Freedom. However, recently super black projects would probably be more focused on/consist more of info-ops tools and less on platforms…
YourFatherThe radar is a maritime surveillance radar, ie ship tracking. Ships, umlike planes, dont zip around at mach .7 type speeds, so track update rate can be slower while still holding the track. All that’s needed is just a memory large enough to handle all the tracks. As for the change in number of target tracks, perhaps they upgraded the computer memory?
YourFatherBut there was certain concerns over the use of the 787 for these roles, as due to the requirement for the 787 to have very high fuel efficiency, the airframe was not suitable for tanker conversion. I’m not too clear about the details, as I am just stating what i remember from an article i read quite a while ago…
YourFatherThe MESA radar can operate over land and sea, but that doesn’t mean that it has E-8 like capabilities. I doubt that it has SAR or GMTI modes. All it means is that its radar , with its A2A modes, can function over land and sea, that’s all. It could probably perform ocean surveillance, tracking ships like the E-2 does, though…
Furthermore, the E-10 DOES face a host of daunting technical challenges to hosting both a A2A and A2G radar on one single platform. One of the main problems faced was electrical power needed to power BOTH radars at once. It seems the engines cannot yet produce that much power needed. Another is EM interference caused by both radars operating at once.
Also, I was wondering what will happen to the E-10, considering that the 767 production line could be shut down due to the lack of orders after the tanker fiasco…
YourFatherIf you had read my earlier posts, I’ve never denied the requirement for low-freq jamming. In the past, when stealth was still a novelty, the air force thought stealth allowed them to do away with jamming, and paid for it with a downed NightHawk. Stealth allows radically reduced support, but never eliminates it totally. To use stealth aircraft without support jamming is nothing but a totally flawed way of operating, so we cannot say that by using stealth aircraft with jamming, we are not using them to their full potential.
YourFatherAhh, I made the cardinal error of skimming thru your statements, and read your argument to mean that defense companies will not provide the best equipment because they will go bust. Sorry. But as I said in my earlier statement, the F-22 cannot replace any specialised plane like the E-10 or AWACS or Rivet Joint. In fact, it is MEANT to work WITH them as a part of the network. Without them, the F-22’s capabilities will not be able to be fully utilised.
As for saying the Raptor is cheap, no, and yes. If you look at the price tag, nobody can say that it is cheap at a 150 mil a pop. It is not something any country can afford other than the USA. However, when evaluating a weapon system, is it not fair that we must take into account the alternatives, and the mission requirements of the plane? (There is much to elaborate, but allow me a little laziness) When we take those into account, then it might actually turn out to be cheap. Just think of the political cost when one pilot is held hostage.
Finally, on what basis do you say, “let us bet that Raptors will use exactly as large or even larger strike support.” I would like to know what drives you to this conclusion, or are you just assuming?
YourFatherI was only joking, but OK, fun aside.. you want arguments?
Arguments as in arguments to support your position.
I bet my a$$ right here, right now with you, that in 20 years Raptors will be backed with exactly as heavy strike package as F-15s and F-16s are today, maybe even more (and definitely much more expensive)…
And you know why? Because nobody in the military industry is stupid enough to provide Raptor or any other aircraft in the future with such features, that would render other specialized platforms worth zillions of dollars suddenly unnecessary, especially if the same companies supply those. Who would be such an idiot to cut off its own cash-flow flowing out of pockets of blindfold followers called happy taxpayers?
I say it again, let us bet right here, right now.. Whatever it takes…
What do you mean? ALL the features I described are currently in the BASELINE version of the Raptor, least of all the future upgraded versions of the aircraft, which will be better. However, no matter how good the plane is, there is still need for other aircraft like the E-10 etc. Your argument is just…. weird….
Sign In
