Singapore buys 12 F-15SG fighter jets
-
Heh, if u can mount it, the strike eagle can fly it.Originally posted by fett:reply for the above two responses from sgFish and cheeze
okay, i think anyone can search the net for the weight for each of the munitions that you guys mentioned.
and weighted down by all this load, how do you propose that the pilot maneuver his plane?
remember, the best specs of a plane are acquired when the plane is clean. the additional of any hardware can only decrease the handling of any plane. ie, E/A 6, with the addition of each jamming pod on its pylon, there will be a loss of some 10kts in airspeed.
provide an answer to the maneuverability issue, then maybe I’ll concede that a plane can ‘self-escort’ itself for any mission.
The strike eagle was made for these kinda deep strike profiles. It was designed with the ability to make low-level penetration attacks through enemy controlled airspace, defend itself against air attacks, and proceed on to destroy its target.
This is a capability that the US Navy's Superhornet cannot replicate.
Of course, with such a heavy load, the strike eagle's ability to dogfight will be hampered. If a knife fight occurs, like they get jumped by mig-29s, the package will have to abort. Air to ground payload jettisoned to defend themselves against a more agile opponent, and then make it back to base.
I wouldn't say a strike package with Strike Eagle will always be self escorting. It really depends on the element of surprise. If u know the enemy is not expecting u, and u need to hit something really far behind. The strike eagle is the way to go. It can run low and fast and deliver its payload with extreme prejudice. To maintain the element of surprise, such a deep strike package would HAVE to be "self-escortin" in order not to tip off the enemy.
The F-15E packs perhaps one of the most powerful and advanced Tactical Electronic Warfare System available for an attack air craft. Its rumored to be so effective that the pilots are only allowed to use it in real combat situations. The jamming signal is touted to be so powerful that it can not only cause harm to the equipments jammed, but to the operator as well. How that works, I am not too sure...
If its just the normal deep strike, and the enemy knows u're coming. Naturally a SEAD escort package and escort package would have to be tagged together with the strike.
Can the F-16C/D fulfill such a role? Yes, but at a shorter range. The longer the range, the lesser the payload.. hardpoints occupied by fuel tanks.
But the F-15E or SG is supposed to be able to carry a lot of payload, AND hit very long distances. -
Seriously, the Pk of BVR missiles these days are very high. An adversary with knowledge of the possible weapons/ WEZ of these weapons would definitely try to stay out of your possible engagement envelope. Besides, with the Amraam you may not get possible warning on the enemy's RWR, so unless they are very sure, they'd prob try to stay away from the threat.
If they manage to thrash the BVR missiles at range, they'd still have to notch into the fight as the range gets closer, i.e they shud be in a slightly defensive posture. That should be a worst case scenario if they F15 can't attrite them at range and have to end up in a dogfight which of course any smart pilot would jettison their external stores and then merge with the enemy. So if the F15 is in clean config, I think they'd be a tough fight for anyone. -
this isn't the vietnam war era. as cheeze has said,the Pk of BVR missiles nowadays are much higher, and i daresay that kinematically defeating an incoming BVR missile (by outflying it) has a better chance of working than maneuvering and spoofing its guidance in this day.Originally posted by fett:so now you're saying the enemy will accede to your request to carry out all engagement t BVR.I must apologize but you sound exactly like those that say guns on planes are so yesterday when missiles were introduce. so what happened at Vietnam? Gun pods were brought back.
And you have not provided a solution to the issue of maneuverability.
And for the issue of AWACS, it is quite inconceivable that such a platform is missing in any mission, so weÂ’ll take it that it have to be there. But again, that does not tell me how the pilot is going to preserve his strike payload, his plane and his life in the event of in interception by enemy aircrafts.
air combat has evolved into a point where the BVR and WVR arenas are separate. If my abovementioned F-15E is operating under an AWACS umbrella, it can prevent any combat from going into WVR by engaging any interceptor flight with BVR missiles, hence keeping the upper hand in AA combat.
The issue of maneuverability isn't really important in the BVR arena. As i said, BVR missiles these days like the AIM-120C/D series and the R-77/AA-12 series have a very high Pk as long as you're between the missile's Rmax2 and Rmin2 launch zones. These missiles also have home on jam capability, hence jamming isn't really useful, and their ECCM capabilities are far more advanced than vietnam war era AIM-7s. Hence BVR combat will be conducted on the basis that whoever fires first has the upper hand, as the firing aircraft can leave the engagement as soon as the missile goes autonomous or even before that.
Of course, the only thing that might hold that back are the rules of engagement in that particular theatre. But with the advent of better air doctrine, IFF, and datalinks, that problem has diminished.
I'm not saying that strike packages with separate AA and AG elements be phased out in favour of self protecting ones, but i'm saying that self protecting strike packages are possible.
hope to hear a response from you soon =) -
I agree that it is really a tough call when it comes to BVR. First of all, the BVR fight today is likened to a boxer, slugging out at their longest reach. Both would take very bad beatings cos of the high pk of the missiles.
However it is also very hard to force a merge since both sides would normally opt for a very conservative BVR fight. In a "chainsaw", both flights would launch and leave at near the max range. Opportunities to merge are simply not there. -
Any possibility that the repeat option of add 8 F-15SG would be exercised?
-
I feel that the option would definitely be exercised. The RSAF requires 60-80 new combat aircraft (though possibly as many as 100) in the long term to replace the now retired A-4SU/TA-4SU strike aircraft and F-5S/T light fighters to be retired by 2015.Originally posted by sbst275:Any possibility that the repeat option of add 8 F-15SG would be exercised?
In fact, besides the option of 8 more aircraft, a follow-up order of 20 or even 40 F-15SG is a must if the RSAF is to avoid the danger of a dwindling and aging inventory due to the large numbers of aircraft to be retired.
It worries me as to whether the RSAF would be able to maintain its lead over potential adversaries with just 12 F-15SG?
-
Singapore is not going into battle with F-15 SG , you all are just paranoid
-
that option will probably be exercised ... Singapore never buys a large initial lot of air-craft, unlike most other countries ... I suppose there are political considerations, you don't want to provoke an arms race ... and at the same time, untill you build up a critical mass of trained personnel to operate these assets to their max potential, they are under utilized and wasting money and airframe life ....Originally posted by sbst275:Any possibility that the repeat option of add 8 F-15SG would be exercised?
count how many Vipers we have now, from an initial 8 (all of those with Thailand now of course) ........
that option will probably be exercised .... -
We'd prob buy up to 20. Maybe not more than that, we'd prob look towards the NGF . Anyway in modern days you don't need to buy 50 new F15s to replace 50 A4SUs for example. 1 Jet can do the equivalent work of several older jets nowadays.
-
These F-15 T will likely serve 100 years since the first F-15.
Imagine a spitfire doing the same...
-
[quote]Originally posted by Shotgun:
[b]
Heh, if u can mount it, the strike eagle can fly it.
no, i'm not disputing this fact.
This is a capability that the US Navy's Superhornet cannot replicate.
someone claim the hornet can do that, which i disagree.
The strike eagle was made for these kinda deep strike profiles. It was designed with the ability to make low-level penetration attacks through enemy controlled airspace, defend itself against air attacks, and proceed on to destroy its target.
Of course, with such a heavy load, the strike eagle's ability to dogfight will be hampered. If a knife fight occurs, like they get jumped by mig-29s, the package will have to abort. Air to ground payload jettisoned to defend themselves against a more agile opponent, and then make it back to base
that will means that the strike mission has fail, thereby making the claim that the F15E/SG can penetrate enemy airspace, defend itself and execute the strike mission potentially false
I wouldn't say a strike package with Strike Eagle will always be self escorting. It really depends on the element of surprise. If u know the enemy is not expecting u, and u need to hit something really far behind. The strike eagle is the way to go. It can run low and fast and deliver its payload with extreme prejudice. To maintain the element of surprise, such a deep strike package would HAVE to be "self-escortin" in order not to tip off the enemy.
true. but of course you one have nighthawk, then problem solved
The F-15E packs perhaps one of the most powerful and advanced Tactical Electronic Warfare System available for an attack air craft. Its rumored to be so effective that the pilots are only allowed to use it in real combat situations. The jamming signal is touted to be so powerful that it can not only cause harm to the equipments jammed, but to the operator as well. How that works, I am not too sure...
that i do not know but i'll take your word for it.
If its just the normal deep strike, and the enemy knows u're coming. Naturally a SEAD escort package and escort package would have to be tagged together with the strike.
in a shooting war, the enemy will know that you're coming. they, as much as us, can recognize a high value target when they see one
Can the F-16C/D fulfill such a role? Yes, but at a shorter range. The longer the range, the lesser the payload.. hardpoints occupied by fuel tanks.
But the F-15E or SG is supposed to be able to carry a lot of payload, AND hit very long distances.
agree to both points. but have to qualify that on the second point, will agree only to 'carry a lot of payload, AND hit vary long distance' and nothing more.
this is quite fun. but better if we're do the talking face to face. faster that way.
-
[quote]Originally posted by sgFish:
[b]
hi it's me again
this isn't the vietnam war era. as cheeze has said,the Pk of BVR missiles nowadays are much higher, and i daresay that kinematically defeating an incoming BVR missile (by outflying it) has a better chance of working than maneuvering and spoofing its guidance in this day
........
The issue of maneuverability isn't really important in the BVR arena. As i said, BVR missiles these days like the AIM-120C/D series and the R-77/AA-12 series have a very high Pk as long as you're between the missile's Rmax2 and Rmin2 launch zones. These missiles also have home on jam capability, hence jamming isn't really useful, and their ECCM capabilities are far more advanced than vietnam war era AIM-7s. Hence BVR combat will be conducted on the basis that whoever fires first has the upper hand, as the firing aircraft can leave the engagement as soon as the missile goes autonomous or even before that..
i have no knowledge but maybe a little understanding of Pk, Rmaz2 and Rmin2, but yes i'll agreed that technological improvements can means a parallel increase in product quality. anyway, i'm not commenting on the ECM or ECCM capabilities, but saying that how one think a war should be fought doesn't mean it will be fought that way. and vietnam is not the only example.
P51Ds was still downing Mig15s in Koren War and US Navy actually have not enough of (piston powered, propellers driven) A-1 Skyraiders in Vietnam.
and some contradiction here 'kinematically defeating ....(by outflying it [the missile])
and '..maneuverability isn't really important...'
how can one element be unimportant and at the same time, one have to depend on the same element (outflying~high degree of maneuveability) to outfly the missile.
air combat has evolved into a point where the BVR and WVR arenas are separate. If my abovementioned F-15E is operating under an AWACS umbrella, it can prevent any combat from going into WVR by engaging any interceptor flight with BVR missiles, hence keeping the upper hand in AA combat...
ah, here's what i'm driving at. who to deliver the BVR missile? so to keep the Pk high, one have to get into position within the Rmaz2 and Rmin2 limit. that will potentially compromise one fuel level, impinge on timing of mission and may affect other follow-on/concurrent missions. the best solution; in my opinion, other aircrafts in the dedicated role of air defense. because, if one fail to take out the enemy one will have to contend with
1) missiles from the opposition
2) possibility of WVR engagement
Of course, the only thing that might hold that back are the rules of engagement in that particular theatre. But with the advent of better air doctrine, IFF, and datalinks, that problem has diminished....
that's not the only thing. you're thinking the enemy will fight on your terms. but if they know they're overmatch, why should they do it? like in iraq now. guerillas or terrorist can't and won't fight in conventional way. but they can sustained the casualities but they american public can't. to paraphase one NVA general (Giap, i think),"We can't lose if they don't win."
I'm not saying that strike packages with separate AA and AG elements be phased out in favour of self protecting ones, but i'm saying that self protecting strike packages are possible.....
i agree. and sorry for the long post but this is quite fun. as i've mentioned. -
Kinematicallly defeating a missile at range, to keep it simple, basically you manouevre such that the missile will never touch you. Simply because the missile has finite energy. The WEZ/Rmax/DLZ1 of the missile changes based on the aspect of the enemy, whether he is head on or not. For example, a shot taken at Rmax, the enemy simply just has to change his heading for example a few degrees or just beam the missile, it will already shrink the WEZ significantly. Missiles fly proportional navigation, so a shot taken at MAX range would have to assume that the enemy just continues on his heading at the instance the missile was off the rail.
Modern air combat, you don't have to shoot down the guy to win a war, just keep him tied down. Sweepers only need to tie down the Cappers, maybe draw them away/ push them away from the strike package, at the end of the day, if they don't shoot down anyone but the strike package gets throught. Mission is accomplished.
And seriously BVR is the way to go. dogfights are a thing of the past, its a last ditch thingy if you can't disengage and have to merge, coz with current technology missiles are extremely lethal, no matter how manoeuverable your aircraft maybe, its kind of difficult to outmanouevre a missile. You can only create angle problems for it, but most of the time in a dogfight the missile's gonna get you. They'll prob have flare rejection capabliity anyway. -
The final F-15 variants will serve till 2040. Thats 68 years since the first YF-15Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:These F-15 T will likely serve 100 years since the first F-15.
Imagine a spitfire doing the same...
flew. Not 100 years its too long... -
actually the rsaf has KC-135 for mid-air refueling, so fuel is not such a major problem.Originally posted by Shotgun:Can the F-16C/D fulfill such a role? Yes, but at a shorter range. The longer the range, the lesser the payload.. hardpoints occupied by fuel tanks.
But the F-15E or SG is supposed to be able to carry a lot of payload, AND hit very long distances. -
But sometimes this theory does not hold... We must always bear in mind that while modern jets are much more capable, any potential adversary would also be able to acquire such technology. Thus the increased threat environment would mean the need for an equal number of replacements at least!Originally posted by cheeze:We'd prob buy up to 20. Maybe not more than that, we'd prob look towards the NGF . Anyway in modern days you don't need to buy 50 new F15s to replace 50 A4SUs for example. 1 Jet can do the equivalent work of several older jets nowadays.
Take our Navy's replacement of the six Sea Wolf class MGBs, even though the new Formidable class FFGs are each many times more potent than an MGB, the number bought was still six! -
[quote]Originally posted by cheeze:
Kinematicallly defeating a missile at range, to keep it simple, basically you manouevre such that the missile will never touch you. Simply because the missile has finite energy. The WEZ/Rmax/DLZ1 of the missile changes based on the aspect of the enemy, whether he is head on or not. For example, a shot taken at Rmax, the enemy simply just has to change his heading for example a few degrees or just beam the missile, it will already shrink the WEZ significantly. Missiles fly proportional navigation, so a shot taken at MAX range would have to assume that the enemy just continues on his heading at the instance the missile was off the rail. .
okay. learn something new everyday.
Modern air combat, you don't have to shoot down the guy to win a war, just keep him tied down. Sweepers only need to tie down the Cappers, maybe draw them away/ push them away from the strike package, at the end of the day, if they don't shoot down anyone but the strike package gets throught. Mission is accomplished.
actually, that what i meant; some blockers in place to let the strikers thru'.
others here maintain that strikers can themselves be blockers, which i disagree.
And seriously BVR is the way to go. dogfights are a thing of the past, its a last ditch thingy if you can't disengage and have to merge, coz with current technology missiles are extremely lethal, no matter how manoeuverable your aircraft maybe, its kind of difficult to outmanouevre a missile. You can only create angle problems for it, but most of the time in a dogfight the missile's gonna get you. They'll prob have flare rejection capabliity anyway.
again, i have no technical knowledge to disagree, so i have to agree -
i was sure someone will bring it up.Originally posted by epImetheus:actually the rsaf has KC-135 for mid-air refueling, so fuel is not such a major problem.
i'm not sure how mid-air refueling will be plan but i'm sure it's not simple.
thing is, i believe in any plan, the rule of thumb is KISS (keep it simple, stupid)
and the tankers may have some other missions on hand. as i've alluded previously, the inability to hit target within the mission parameters will have an effect other concurrent/subsequent missions.
of course, you will say that tankers can be plan for. but then, assets are limited. the asset being planned for one mission will have to come from someone else requirement. As far as I understand it, itÂ’s a zero-sum problem. -
this is in addition to what D5 said.Originally posted by cheeze:We'd prob buy up to 20. Maybe not more than that, we'd prob look towards the NGF . Anyway in modern days you don't need to buy 50 new F15s to replace 50 A4SUs for example. 1 Jet can do the equivalent work of several older jets nowadays.
if 1 can do the job of 5, the lost of 1 plane will means the TOTAL loss of mission capability. whereas the lost of 1 older plane will only means a loss of 20% capability.
of course, modern jet are highly survivable. But then, the jets are so designed because the high threat environment. This, I believe, is one of the factors that inflate the price of modern jets, making them less affordable. not to mention the capabilities bulid in the airframe. -
what i meant by 1 jet can do the work of several older ones being.
It used to to take several sorties with dozens of aircraft to attempt to destroy a target during the vietnam war.
It took dozens of aircraft a single sortie to destroy select targets during the gulf war.
It used to be number of sorties per target but gradually its moving more towards number of targets per sortie per aircraft.
I guess you can safely assume as technology advances it'll become 1 bomb 1 target kind of thing.
Fighter aircraft don't operate alone, they operate in flights, 2-ship being the basic element and up to flights of 4 or more during missions. So losing 1 aircraft doesn't mean total loss of mission cap. Just means that they probrably have to re-task another aircraft to hit the targets.
What the new generation of aircraft bring about are better mission capability and survivability, what several aircraft decades ago needed to drop on targets may only a few nowadays.
Maybe the only aircraft that operate singly are the B2 and F117 ... -
network information warfare......
-
but still, the fact remains that you got to do more with less.Originally posted by cheeze:what i meant by 1 jet can do the work of several older ones being.
It used to to take several sorties with dozens of aircraft to attempt to destroy a target during the vietnam war.
It took dozens of aircraft a single sortie to destroy select targets during the gulf war.
It used to be number of sorties per target but gradually its moving more towards number of targets per sortie per aircraft.
I guess you can safely assume as technology advances it'll become 1 bomb 1 target kind of thing.
Fighter aircraft don't operate alone, they operate in flights, 2-ship being the basic element and up to flights of 4 or more during missions. So losing 1 aircraft doesn't mean total loss of mission cap. Just means that they probrably have to re-task another aircraft to hit the targets.
What the new generation of aircraft bring about are better mission capability and survivability, what several aircraft decades ago needed to drop on targets may only a few nowadays.
Maybe the only aircraft that operate singly are the B2 and F117 ...
i know aircraft normally don't operate alone but if ten targets need to be neutralized, it is still at least 10 sorties. So if one have 20 planes, that will be 1 sortie per 2 ships-element. Whereas for a 10 planes force, that will be 2 sorties per 2 ships-element.
While one can capitalized on smart weapons, a plane in the air is still needed, just as infantry men is still needed to hold ground. Unless UAVs start flying and/or money is no worry for buying smart weapons, the more plane one have, the better one can absorb losses. -
You not updaed har? Still call F-15TOriginally posted by SMAPLionHeart:These F-15 T will likely serve 100 years since the first F-15.
Imagine a spitfire doing the same... -
Well, we are trying not to provoke into a arms raceOriginally posted by Delta 5:I feel that the option would definitely be exercised. The RSAF requires 60-80 new combat aircraft (though possibly as many as 100) in the long term to replace the now retired A-4SU/TA-4SU strike aircraft and F-5S/T light fighters to be retired by 2015.
In fact, besides the option of 8 more aircraft, a follow-up order of 20 or even 40 F-15SG is a must if the RSAF is to avoid the danger of a dwindling and aging inventory due to the large numbers of aircraft to be retired.
It worries me as to whether the RSAF would be able to maintain its lead over potential adversaries with just 12 F-15SG? -
the defence of our airspace will be mainly on the F-5s & F-16s for the next 4 years.