RSAF's eventual procurement of the F-35 JSF
-
must get value for money..
F-35 is not cost effective at all -
I wouldnt' say replacing. The Skyhawks gets to retire, and the new F-15Ts roll in.Originally posted by sbst275:F-15T is more of replacing Skyhawks
The F-15Ts would provide more strike options, and air to air options when compared to the skyhawks. -
Confirm one what,Originally posted by Shotgun:I wouldnt' say replacing. The Skyhawks gets to retire, and the new F-15Ts roll in.
The F-15Ts would provide more strike options, and air to air options when compared to the skyhawks.
F-15 is current technology, A-4SU is from 1980's -
isn't the B the VSTOL version and C the carrier (catapult launch + tailhook) version?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Correct.The C should be a V/STOL version which is for the Marines and the Carrier.Not the usual catapult launch version.
EDIT: http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm
neh. official site -
Would be good to have the VTOL versions, less dependent on runway conditions (ie after artillery bombardment, etc) but weighing in the financial aspects of purchasing it, I'd say MINDEF would probably go for the trim version without all the extras.
I might be wrong but I'll be glad if MINDEF surprises me.
-
paiseh.Originally posted by sgFish:isn't the B the VSTOL version and C the carrier (catapult launch + tailhook) version?
EDIT: http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm
neh. official site
-
Correction for my mistake that F-35 is strictly a carrier-based. It needs catapult for it to launch and there is no way of launching the C-version off from a LPD (at least from current LPD design). It should be F-35C is strictly a carrier-based.
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
F-35C is entirely designed for US Navy. To takeoff from carrier, it definitely must be catapult off. That's why they call it Very Short takeoff/landing.
Correct.The C should be a V/STOL version which is for the Marines and the Carrier.Not the usual catapult launch version.
F-35B is then for USMC, RN, designed for STOVL using ramps which is seen on Invincible-class carrier. As why Wasp-class assault ship don't have ramp is that its flight deck is so long that it does not need the ramp to launch the aircraft.
USN - Multi-role, stealthy strike fighter to complement F/A-18E/F. Carrier operations account for most of the differences between the Navy version and the other JSF variants. The aircraft has larger wing and tail control surfaces to better manage low-speed approaches. The internal structure of the Navy variant is strengthened up to handle the loads associated with catapult launches and arrested landings. The aircraft has a carrier-suitable tailhook. Its landing gear has a longer stroke and higher load capacity. The aircraft has almost twice the range of an F-18C on internal fuel. The design is also optimized for survivability. -
Then it would be the B version I was talking about..all these acronyms messing with my head..exam period..
-
would the F-35 be better than the F-15T in Air to air combat? 15T has a powerful fire control radar, whereas F-35 is stealthy. anyone know whether the F-35 radar going to be better than what we get in the F-15T?
-
The US have already begun programmes that might hint the replacement of the F-15E, despite that it will remain on their production line for quite some time.
Kinda saw that on Jane's. Anyone got more details? -
The JSF's APG81 is the new Generation AESA radar with latest MMIC
While F15C's APG63V2 ( F15T APG63V2( V3?) is the 1st generation AESA.
Both radars got similar detection range.
But since F35's RCS is much smaller than that of F15T.
So, most likely, F35 can detect F15T size target as far as 270km but F15T can only detect F35 size target within mere 40km range. -
BTW, I think the export version of the F35 wouldn't have the same level of the stealth figured in the F35 used by US forces.
Still need wait and see what type of exported version can SAF get before make any substantial comparison -
Then we buy Chinese / Israeli stealth technology and implement lor.
-
the total no. of A4 airframes that we have is about 110 if I am not wrong. But I don't think we ever have that many in operation at any point in time. If I am not wrong only about 40+ A4s are upgraded to A4SU standard with the BOTH the F404 engine and the avionics upgrade.Originally posted by Delta 5:But there will be a shortfall definitely from 2014 onwards as our F-5S/T fleet is retired. Moreover the F-35 is not regarded a high end fighter like the F/A-22 so I feel that we will definitely acquire some from 2014 onwards, keeping in mind that the F-15T is meant as an A-4SU replacement and not a F-5S/T replacement.
Even acquiring a fleet of 40 F-15T will just about be sufficient to replace the now withdrawn fleet of 82 A-4SU Skyhawks. Expecting the 40 new planes to also cover the duties of 53 F-5S/T would be stretching them a little too much won't it?
i.e Replacing 135 warplanes with only 40 new ones? This would result in a sharp fall in the critical numbers required for us to maintain a truly effective fighting force. -
Yeah I counted a total of 121 airframes delivered to the RSAF. Just imagine this warplane once made up a third of our air force!Originally posted by spencer99:the total no. of A4 airframes that we have is about 110 if I am not wrong. But I don't think we ever have that many in operation at any point in time. If I am not wrong only about 40+ A4s are upgraded to A4SU standard with the BOTH the F404 engine and the avionics upgrade.
82 of these were upgraded to A-4SU/TA-4SU standard. -
for me, i believe MINDEF would get both F-35A\B together, 20 planes each. the F35A will be more for AG while F35B would be reserved more for AA duties.(since sgfish pointed out tat the F35B would be unable to carry MK-84 class weapons for AG work, so hence the theory...) -
20 EACH?! I was thinking of like 20 in total, 12 / 8. LOL!
-
well..we do have alot of planes to replace by the time the F-35s are procured..Originally posted by Shotgun:20 EACH?! I was thinking of like 20 in total, 12 / 8. LOL!
-
The air superioirity in the future belongs to the effective use of UCAV and Manned Fighters (VSTOL). I believe that Sg will use F15 as a stepping stones for training our pilot in deep strike operations.
Buying the F35 B or C make sense to us. Why?
1. As technologies improved, u can reduce the number of hardware to achieve the mission objective. Thus, it off-set the cost factor from the equation.
2. VSTOL aircraft enable our planes to strike out deeper and further with heavier load. The LSD ships could operate as a make shift refuelling station during the mission.
3. VSTOL enable us to throw away the idea of long runway. Thus, it will greatly increase our operational flexibility in time of war. Just note that our neighbour Sukkoi needs a 1km runway to take off with full weapon load.
4. Lessons from Falkland war has illustrated the usefulness of the Harriers. They are able to operate in the front line from refuelling and re-arming. Thus, shorten the mission time, and increase the leathality due to shorter time lag.
I believe that the future 3G airforce will include a combination usage of advanced manned fighter (F15 / F35) together with UCAV for enemies air defence suspession. Due to the large weapon load on F15 and F35, together with the adv sesnory systems and guided weaponaries, we would be able to deliver good punch at a very reasonable cost, yet without compromising our operation flexibility. -
Also we will maybe not buy F/A-22 due to the very very high cost of the Raptor. Like what LazerLordz had say, even UK's not getting them. A report I'd read says that in Asia, only Japan can afford to buy those planes, but at a limited quantity. So I dun think Singapore will be buying the raptor, though I personally will want to see it with the lion head on it. Unless the Singapore dollar is going so strong that US$1 = S$1... Comments?[/b][/quote]
Why does the F22 cost so much at USD250 million each? Is it a SUPER war plane? No country will be able to afford such a expensive plane.
What are the technologies that make this war plane so expensive? -
it's not the technology .... but the US defence industrial complex that makes them so expensive .... those US defence juggernauts are famous for $300 wrenches remember ...Originally posted by Sid_Vicious:Why does the F22 cost so much at USD250 million each? Is it a SUPER war plane? No country will be able to afford such a expensive plane.
What are the technologies that make this war plane so expensive?
if course, if the russian or the chinese can get hold of the same technology ... they can probably churn out a similar plane at a fraction of the price ... (even if the workmanship won't be quite up to scratch ... )
no worries .... the F/A 22 won't be available ....yet .... the manufacturers won't be happy just to make a couple or 3 hundred examples for the USAF alone ... sooner or later their washington lobbyists would go to work .... and maybe, just maybe, we'll see raptors with the lion head logo on them ...
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
Those technologies never come cheap, the development of F22 alone costs a cool 20.4 billion USD! Considering USAF's firm order only stands for 178 units of F22, The development cost per unit alone will be sth like 100 million bucks over. the manufacturing cost said to be below 200 millions USD per unit. the 2 costs add together, then you see the F22's price is skyhigh--near 300 million USD!!
it's not the technology .... but the US defence industrial complex that makes them so expensive .... those US defence juggernauts are famous for $300 wrenches remember ...
if course, if the russian or the chinese can get hold of the same technology ... they can probably churn out a similar plane at a fraction of the price ... (even if the workmanship won't be quite up to scratch ... ) -
yes, the F22 is an expensive plane of course ... but with the US defence industry as they are .... i won't be surprised if quite a large portion of the development cost are due to "$300 wrenches" and such ....Originally posted by 38�Ž:Those technologies never come cheap, the development of F22 alone costs a cool 20.4 billion USD! Considering USAF's firm order only stands for 178 units of F22, The development cost per unit alone will be sth like 100 million bucks over. the manufacturing cost said to be below 200 millions USD per unit. the 2 costs add together, then you see the F22's price is skyhigh--near 300 million USD!!
if you're cash strapped, you'll find ways and means to work with what you have ... how can the russians produce such sterling aircraft such as the super flankers on a shoe-string budget ? ... the american defence industry is hamstrung by their high overheads .... they may just loose their competitive edge if they're not careful ... -
If I've got US$3 billion, which I can buy 10 raptor, I would rather spend the money on 6 more Formidable-class frigate. Left over money will upgrade the weapon system from ASTER-15 to PAAMS (both aster-15 and -30), Harpoon Block II or even Tomahawk. While raptor shoot with AIM-120, I shoot it with PAAMS, ground attack I use Harpoon.Originally posted by 38�Ž:Those technologies never come cheap, the development of F22 alone costs a cool 20.4 billion USD! Considering USAF's firm order only stands for 178 units of F22, The development cost per unit alone will be sth like 100 million bucks over. the manufacturing cost said to be below 200 millions USD per unit. the 2 costs add together, then you see the F22's price is skyhigh--near 300 million USD!!
A ship's endurance and range is much further than plane, giving it more punch. Thus I come to this decision. Anyony care to give any comments. Good comment please... -
u only look at "$300 wrenches" but ignore how advance and how effective the American aviation industry. Their aviation industry's economy in scale and expertise make their products low in manufacturing cost but high in quality even compared to those in Russian and china. While 1 US engine plant can turn out hundreds of F110 powerplants per year , it may take years for a Chinese engine plant to do the same volume, so, you know, no matter how cheap the labor cost in china, it still lost the manufacturing cost because you prolong your production too much.Originally posted by Fatum:yes, the F22 is an expensive plane of course ... but with the US defence industry as they are .... i won't be surprised if quite a large portion of the development cost are due to "$300 wrenches" and such ....
if you're cash strapped, you'll find ways and means to work with what you have ... how can the russians produce such sterling aircraft such as the super flankers on a shoe-string budget ? ... the american defence industry is hamstrung by their high overheads .... they may just loose their competitive edge if they're not careful ...
BTW, many sub-systems of F22 are naturally in high cost compared to older Generation fighter jets. I would see: the American strong aviation industry saves the cost for F22 but the naturally high materials cost specially those stealth materials, composites, rare alloys used in the F119 powerplant, T/R module used in the APG77 AESA. which all cost u dearly