With the knowledge of today I would say the F-23 had been the better a/c.
It has better range and could certainly be much easier converted into a fighter bomber. The aerodynamics were better and it should have lower running costs.(absence of TVC for example) Then the heat distribution was better solved in the F-23, which causes the F-22 till today problems.

I think someone here or in an other forum got ‘never fly the ‘A’-model of anything below his avatar. I got nothing to add.

Would the Singaporeans be willing to purchase french weapons, if they decide to take the Rafale ?
If I remember correctly, their AMRAAM’s were stored at Guam, and only delivered after the F-16 and F-18 were kicked out of the tender…
Economy vs. independence.
Typhoon would be a compromise between compatibility to existing and planned weapons and weapons from an independent source. The Rafale would give independence at the expense of additional weapons purchases. And french weapons are not exactly known for dirt cheap prices.
The Eagle offers the biggest commonality with existing aircraft.
About the real performane of the contenders in the singaporean evaluation process, we will hopefully learn more after the winner has been announced.

Needless to say, which aircaft I would perfer. 🙂

I agree and disagree with the last post. Completely forgetting about the fast jet fleet and letting them fall apart and concentrating on the economy instead might seem like a good idea at first, but what if in 2010-2015 timeframe when the economy is a little better, and the country decides to buy figher jets after all, they will have to start from scratch, which will be extremely difficult. Keeping pilots flying on a supersonic fighter is important. I would say that the Mig-21 in SiCG AF service is more important for its being able to keep pilots flying, than it is for its fighting capability or its value as a deterrent.

They wouldn’t have to start from the scratch. Without sticktime there won’t be any qualified pilot’s anyway to go on a future fastjet. And we are here mostly focused on the pilot’s. What about the technicians ? Let’s face it: the difference between a MiG-21 and a Galeb on the one side and a Gripen or F-50 on the other side is that big, that the difference between MiG and Galeb isn’t worth any mentioning. As example take the experience made in Laage. Transition from Phantom/MiG-29 is no problem for the pilots. The problem got the technicians. And the PII/MiG are by far in a different class than the MiG-21. Think radar, ECM, ….
Personally I belief it is easier for pilots with enough sticktime on a AJT to handle those new ‘carefree handling’ fastjets, then for jocks that flew a MiG-21 10 hours a year. It is the personel pool and the structures that need to be kept, not the fastmover.
And to keep a squadron working, they need to fly, fly,….

Al those politics aside- wouldn’t it be better to keep a larger personel pool, then to keep supersonic jets ? Most articles I read mentioning the Galeb are pretty positive about this aircraft. So why not only keep them in the air and concentrate on giving the pilots some sticktime ? Don’t know if it is the case in Serbia, but most pilots in eastern european countries becoming older and older, while younger pilots are rarely to find…

I remember why Austria choose the Blackhawk. It’s landing gear is better suited for landing on slopes, and yes, because it is more sturdy.

It seems to me there is no alternative to keep the MiG-21 airworthy. (except being unable to do even airpolicing) 20 aircraft seem to be the limit to do some airpolicing and keep the pilots in training, that rules the MiG-29 out.
But what to do after 2010/12… ?
Instead of FC-1. I would rather go for the F/T-50. Trainer and light fighter combined. Real combat value won’t be achived anyway.

We could as well compare our *****. Or boats, girlfriends and cars for that matter. :rolleyes:.