RSAF search for new fighter to replace the F-5s
-
The true capacity of the F-15 & F-16 is when they are deep into enemy territory, or on extended endurance air patrol that is in line with SAF stategy - bring the fight to the enemy and not fight on home ground.Originally posted by FireAndHell:A coincidence perhaps.....but this announcement comes at a time when the Isrealis have recently concluded an undetected swoop onto syrian territory to bomb a certain target w/o being detected until it's over.
Perhaps it has proven the true capability of the F16s and F15s that an "old" workhorse with the right pilots and enhancements to the plane can still go into enemy territory with impunity. That's what RSAF may be looking for and it has proven itself !!
Extract from a australia analyst article on why in Typhoon even with agile ability in supersonic flight in some situation will lost the fight to F-15.
" The clean Typhoon, with 50% internal gas and 6-8 AAMs is firmly in the class of the F100-PW-229 powered F-15F, on dry thrust, and about 15% behind the F-15F on reheat. Where the Typhoon falls behind the F-15F is when its operating radius is stretched and additional external gas is being carried. If we take a Typhoon with 3 x 1000L external tanks, and an F-15F with 2 x 600 USG external tanks, we have configurations which deliver very similar endurance and operating radius for a point intercept. In the latter situation, approaching the target, the Typhoon is around 12% behind the F-15F in critical reheated thrust/weight ratio. If we compare a Typhoon with CFTs, 3 x 1000L external tanks against an F-15F with only CFTs, we get a shortfall of about 20% in thrust/weight ratio in addition to the drag penalty of the external tanks. These are very approximate estimates, not accounting for combat gas, but even doing a very accurate simulation would yield the inevitable conclusion - an F/A-18 sized fighter, no matter how agile when clean, cannot compete in thrust/weight ratio with an F-15 sized fighter at extended operating radii. "
Also note that Typhoon does not have the low level terrain peneration & range and load capability of the F-15, F-16 and rafale.
So we should be glad that we got the F-15SG and F-16 instead of Euro fighter.
Eurofighter was design by British - basically influence by history - UK survive is because their fighters squarons win the dog fight battle with germany fighter over the sea .... that why they wanted a good air to air typhoon with great agile and only need to fight nearer to home.
But US - is a plane that may not be the best but have the long leg - Mustang which turn the tide and win the war. The Mustang, when equipped with drop-tanks, for the first time allowed heavy bombers to be escorted deep into Germany and back by fighters and greatly decreased losses as a result. When Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goring spotted a Mustang over Berlin he said “the war is lost” – he was not wrong
Thus if we look at F-15SG - it is the best choice something that bring the fight to enemy and its performance over far out enemy terrority is better then any other aircraft even in air fight.
Unless we want to do our air fight closer to home , then eurofighter will then be the better choice. -
The F-15F? The single-seat version of the E?Originally posted by storywolf:....Also note that Typhoon does not have the low level terrain peneration & range and load capability of the F-15, F-16 and rafale....
Eurofighter was design by British - basically influence by history - UK survive is because their fighters squarons win the dog fight battle with germany fighter over the sea .... that why they wanted a good air to air typhoon with great agile and only need to fight nearer to home.
But US - is a plane that may not be the best but have the long leg - Mustang which turn the tide and win the war. The Mustang, when equipped with drop-tanks, for the first time allowed heavy bombers to be escorted deep into Germany...
Thus if we look at F-15SG - it is the best choice something that bring the fight to enemy and its performance over far out enemy terrority is better then any other aircraft even in air fight.
Unless we want to do our air fight closer to home , then eurofighter will then be the better choice.
http://www.patricksaviation.com/wiki/F-15F
Now I must admit I'm no expert in the stats provided by this Aussie Analyst (who? Carlo Kopp?) in his analyst between the Typhoon & the Eagle. And if he (or she) was so spot on, why didn't the RAAF chiefs discounted the Eagle earlier on and yet ordered the Rhino as the interim (replacement of the The Pig) pending the introductory of the Lighting II into RAAF service? But hey, this topic should not be discussed here in this thread.....so I would take this OZ analyst reporting with a pinch of salt.
Anyway, the Typhoon is NOT a design dictated by the Brits and its capability defined by them only. Don't forget, the Typhoon is a joint project by 4 countries (UK, Germany, Italy & Spain). The Brits may be comfortable with the Typhoon being short-legged as Britain itself is an island separated from continental Europe. But the Germans? Spanish? Italians? They have shared borders and I seriously doubt they are comfortable with meeting any potential aerial adversary just outside their airspace.
Btw, UK 'survived' (I think you are referring to the Battle of Britain?) not b'cos of the advantageous in the short-legged capability of the Spifires & Hurricanes then. The Brits are forced to operate close & take on the Luftwaffe as they (the former) don't have a choice in both the Spits/Hurricane numbers vs Luftwaffe numbers arrayed against them! And don't forget the very shortfall in pilots available to the RAF in early 1940. No doubt the RAF operated over own territory, it also meant that shot-down RAF pilots could be quickly returned to their bases and get into the fight again, as compared to downed Luftwaffe pilots who baled out over England and will see their fighting days over as they will be sent straight to POW camps in either England or shipped to Canada. In addition, RAF were lucky as the short-legged Luftwaffe could only operate from France and from Norway (bombers only w/o figher escort). But in today's scanario, with the advent of stand-off missiles & long-legged fighters/bombers (in the class of the Flankers/Blackjet/Backfires) coupled with AAR, the RAF will not be facing an an enemy that sufferred from the limits that faced the Luftwaffe of the 1940s. Btw, traditionally the scope of (patrol) ops for RAF is the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) gap, and that's where Tornado F-3 long range was appreciated. Come on, I don't think any decent fighter pilots would like multiple AAR attempts esp in a hot job, surely no one wants to be caught with their pants down when the enemy pops-up when in the 'act' of AAR! Any pilots here want to disagree with me?
Personally, by the time the RAF meets any aggressor near their shore, I'll be worried that do they (esp those in non-STOVL types) have a place to land after their encounter in the air or they can still identify whatever is left of London.
Yes, the Mustang helped to war the war over Germany BUT not b'cos it has the range but alot of other factors. eg the Luftwaffe senior leadership had always treated the Luftwaffe as a tactical AF rather than a Strategic AF etc. Tactical as the German Army commanders had always treated the Luftwaffe as a flying artillery to help the army in its blitzkreig. Like after bombing, the softened-land targets will be immediately exploited by a ground army. But when come to the Battle of Britain, w/o a land army, no matter how hard the Luftwaffe pounded the UK land defences, such acts is considered fruitless & pointless as the short gains could not be exploited on the ground therefore it became simply as an aerial attrition that took a beating as RAF Spits/Hurricanes could pounce on returning fuel-starved 109 pilots.
The fact is no doubt the Typhoon was derived in the 1980s, but along the years it was evolved to meet futures threats esp it wqas evolved to be super manoevorable to meet the SU-27/30 series. And mind you, dogfights don't happen in high Mach numbers but more in subsonic speeds. If give me to select between the victor between a Tphoon/Flanker encounter (discounting BVR missile enagements), I would pick the Typhoon having a very slight edge over the Flanker. And how about an Eagle/Flanker engagement? errrr......
Therefore, I seriously doubt the Typhoon to be considered just a short-legged fighter and I don't think the current RAF planners share the same myopic vision that plagued the 1940s Luftwaffe in having a short-legged Typhoon.
P/s I had came across an Int'l Avaiation mag report that there was an incident that happened in UK airpace during that time when the Typhhon was being delivered for trials and apparently 2 Lakenhealth-based Eagles decide to takle on the 'newbies' and they (Eagle pilots) came out shock over the engagement...now I'm not sure did this engagement did take place but apparently this 'piece' of info was suppressed by the official media. -
After buying the crappy F-15SG,I hope RSAF will buy something more modern..
No gripen. It is either Typhoon or Rafale! -
Originally posted by Black Aces:
I agree... Especially Typhoon can super cruise which will save a lot of fuel!
The F-15[b]F? The single-seat version of the E?
http://www.patricksaviation.com/wiki/F-15F
Now I must admit I'm no expert in the stats provided by this Aussie Analyst (who? Carlo Kopp?) in his analyst between the Typhoon & the Eagle. And if he (or she) was so spot on, why didn't the RAAF chiefs discounted the Eagle earlier on and yet ordered the Rhino as the interim (replacement of the The Pig) pending the introductory of the Lighting II into RAAF service? But hey, this topic should not be discussed here in this thread.....so I would take this OZ analyst reporting with a pinch of salt.
Anyway, the Typhoon is NOT a design dictated by the Brits and its capability defined by them only. Don't forget, the Typhoon is a joint project by 4 countries (UK, Germany, Italy & Spain). The Brits may be comfortable with the Typhoon being short-legged as Britain itself is an island separated from continental Europe. But the Germans? Spanish? Italians? They have shared borders and I seriously doubt they are comfortable with meeting any potential aerial adversary just outside their airspace.
Btw, UK 'survived' (I think you are referring to the Battle of Britain?) not b'cos of the advantageous in the short-legged capability of the Spifires & Hurricanes then. The Brits are forced to operate close & take on the Luftwaffe as they (the former) don't have a choice in both the Spits/Hurricane numbers vs Luftwaffe numbers arrayed against them! And don't forget the very shortfall in pilots available to the RAF in early 1940. No doubt the RAF operated over own territory, it also meant that shot-down RAF pilots could be quickly returned to their bases and get into the fight again, as compared to downed Luftwaffe pilots who baled out over England and will see their fighting days over as they will be sent straight to POW camps in either England or shipped to Canada. In addition, RAF were lucky as the short-legged Luftwaffe could only operate from France and from Norway (bombers only w/o figher escort). But in today's scanario, with the advent of stand-off missiles & long-legged fighters/bombers (in the class of the Flankers/Blackjet/Backfires) coupled with AAR, the RAF will not be facing an an enemy that sufferred from the limits that faced the Luftwaffe of the 1940s. Btw, traditionally the scope of (patrol) ops for RAF is the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) gap, and that's where Tornado F-3 long range was appreciated. Come on, I don't think any decent fighter pilots would like multiple AAR attempts esp in a hot job, surely no one wants to be caught with their pants down when the enemy pops-up when in the 'act' of AAR! Any pilots here want to disagree with me?
Personally, by the time the RAF meets any aggressor near their shore, I'll be worried that do they (esp those in non-STOVL types) have a place to land after their encounter in the air or they can still identify whatever is left of London.
Yes, the Mustang helped to war the war over Germany BUT not b'cos it has the range but alot of other factors. eg the Luftwaffe senior leadership had always treated the Luftwaffe as a tactical AF rather than a Strategic AF etc. Tactical as the German Army commanders had always treated the Luftwaffe as a flying artillery to help the army in its blitzkreig. Like after bombing, the softened-land targets will be immediately exploited by a ground army. But when come to the Battle of Britain, w/o a land army, no matter how hard the Luftwaffe pounded the UK land defences, such acts is considered fruitless & pointless as the short gains could not be exploited on the ground therefore it became simply as an aerial attrition that took a beating as RAF Spits/Hurricanes could pounce on returning fuel-starved 109 pilots.
The fact is no doubt the Typhoon was derived in the 1980s, but along the years it was evolved to meet futures threats esp it wqas evolved to be super manoevorable to meet the SU-27/30 series. And mind you, dogfights don't happen in high Mach numbers but more in subsonic speeds. If give me to select between the victor between a Tphoon/Flanker encounter (discounting BVR missile enagements), I would pick the Typhoon having a very slight edge over the Flanker. And how about an Eagle/Flanker engagement? errrr......
Therefore, I seriously doubt the Typhoon to be considered just a short-legged fighter and I don't think the current RAF planners share the same myopic vision that plagued the 1940s Luftwaffe in having a short-legged Typhoon.
P/s I had came across an Int'l Avaiation mag report that there was an incident that happened in UK airpace during that time when the Typhhon was being delivered for trials and apparently 2 Lakenhealth-based Eagles decide to takle on the 'newbies' and they (Eagle pilots) came out shock over the engagement...now I'm not sure did this engagement did take place but apparently this 'piece' of info was suppressed by the official media.
[/b] -
Maybe F22 ?
-
RSAF should get the Rafale F2 so tat in future, our planes can land on a USN Carrier
-
-
i wanna typhoon
-
let's have all the taxpayer to vote ... let say if mindef shortlisted F15SG and typhoon again
don't like rafale cos it's france ... and that "thing" sticking out in front spoilt the otherwise nice design plane. -
As I say - The true capacity of the F-15 & F-16 is when they are deep into enemy territory, or on extended endurance air patrol that is in line with SAF stategy - bring the fight to the enemy and not fight on home ground.Originally posted by Black Aces:P/s I had came across an Int'l Avaiation mag report that there was an incident that happened in UK airpace during that time when the Typhhon was being delivered for trials and apparently 2 Lakenhealth-based Eagles decide to takle on the 'newbies' and they (Eagle pilots) came out shock over the engagement...now I'm not sure did this engagement did take place but apparently this 'piece' of info was suppressed by the official media.
Extract from a australia analyst article on why in Typhoon even with agile ability in supersonic flight in "some" situation will lost the fight to F-15.
I already say in endurance long range then F-15 have the advantage - please read carefully.
The int'l mag in UK incident, the eurofigher is being deliver from Uk to Uk hello of course it is clean !!! and of course it can out fight the 2 F-15 .
What I am saying is if it fly a mission from Uk all the way to germany and back, with out refueling aircraft support, than it is a different story, this type of long range mission , the F-15 will have advantage over the eurofighter with 3 fuel tanks !!! -
word of qnOriginally posted by storywolf:As I say - The true capacity of the F-15 & F-16 is when they are deep into enemy territory, or on extended endurance air patrol that is in line with SAF stategy - bring the fight to the enemy and not fight on home ground.
Extract from a australia analyst article on why in Typhoon even with agile ability in supersonic flight in "some" situation will lost the fight to F-15.
I already say in endurance long range then F-15 have the advantage - please read carefully.
The int'l mag in UK incident, the eurofigher is being deliver from Uk to Uk hello of course it is clean !!! and of course it can out fight the 2 F-15 .
What I am saying is if it fly a mission from Uk all the way to germany and back, with out refueling aircraft support, than it is a different story, this type of long range mission , the F-15 will have advantage over the eurofighter with 3 fuel tanks !!!
have you seen Typhoon QRA configuration?
for goodness sake.....all planes can carry 3 fuel tanks + air refueling capability....your reasoning is not good to me though
-
i think it is common to say that if 'engaged' or unable not to avoid getting into a merge, all fighters modern or legacy will jettison any external stores to get the maximum manouverability. only bvr engagements whereby u can be high and fast and just shoot off the missiles, there is no need to jettison any stores.Originally posted by storywolf:As I say - The true capacity of the F-15 & F-16 is when they are deep into enemy territory, or on extended endurance air patrol that is in line with SAF stategy - bring the fight to the enemy and not fight on home ground.
Extract from a australia analyst article on why in Typhoon even with agile ability in supersonic flight in "some" situation will lost the fight to F-15.
I already say in endurance long range then F-15 have the advantage - please read carefully.
The int'l mag in UK incident, the eurofigher is being deliver from Uk to Uk hello of course it is clean !!! and of course it can out fight the 2 F-15 .
What I am saying is if it fly a mission from Uk all the way to germany and back, with out refueling aircraft support, than it is a different story, this type of long range mission , the F-15 will have advantage over the eurofighter with 3 fuel tanks !!!
but if u need to turn and burn, especially in modern times, the only things u need to keep in order to survive are your air-to-air weapons.
you don't wanna die in the merge with 3 tanks under the wing. it'd be foolish of the pilot to do so and he'd deserve to die. -
I think it is most likely the F-15SG again - for commonality with the existing F-15SG fleet. Also, I'm not sure the Europeans can even offer any ordnance that come close to the package that came with the F-15SG, such as JDAMs, AIM120C, GBU-28, AGM-154 etc.
Didn't we sign contract for 12 with option for 8 more? My friend (pilot in RSAF) told me RSAF always exercise option to the max, so we'll probably have 20 F-15SG until we sign new contract for more.
RSAF can feel confident with F-15 and F-16 fleet since our friend in Mideast used these planes successfully in Iraq's Osirak reactor (Operation Opera) in 1980's and recent Operation Orchard in Syria.
My only concern is both F-15 and F-16 will be using the GE F110 engine. What are the chances that they will ALL be grounded if it is found in future there is a widespread flaw during manufacture (such cracks) in the GE engine, as has happened to several jet/heli engines. It will make us very vulnerable if all our strike aircraft grounded due to engine flaw. -
Originally posted by Black Aces:
Britain survived the battle of britain for a number of reasons.
The F-15[b]F? The single-seat version of the E?
http://www.patricksaviation.com/wiki/F-15F
Now I must admit I'm no expert in the stats provided by this Aussie Analyst (who? Carlo Kopp?) in his analyst between the Typhoon & the Eagle. And if he (or she) was so spot on, why didn't the RAAF chiefs discounted the Eagle earlier on and yet ordered the Rhino as the interim (replacement of the The Pig) pending the introductory of the Lighting II into RAAF service? But hey, this topic should not be discussed here in this thread.....so I would take this OZ analyst reporting with a pinch of salt.
Anyway, the Typhoon is NOT a design dictated by the Brits and its capability defined by them only. Don't forget, the Typhoon is a joint project by 4 countries (UK, Germany, Italy & Spain). The Brits may be comfortable with the Typhoon being short-legged as Britain itself is an island separated from continental Europe. But the Germans? Spanish? Italians? They have shared borders and I seriously doubt they are comfortable with meeting any potential aerial adversary just outside their airspace.
Btw, UK 'survived' (I think you are referring to the Battle of Britain?) not b'cos of the advantageous in the short-legged capability of the Spifires & Hurricanes then. The Brits are forced to operate close & take on the Luftwaffe as they (the former) don't have a choice in both the Spits/Hurricane numbers vs Luftwaffe numbers arrayed against them! And don't forget the very shortfall in pilots available to the RAF in early 1940. No doubt the RAF operated over own territory, it also meant that shot-down RAF pilots could be quickly returned to their bases and get into the fight again, as compared to downed Luftwaffe pilots who baled out over England and will see their fighting days over as they will be sent straight to POW camps in either England or shipped to Canada. In addition, RAF were lucky as the short-legged Luftwaffe could only operate from France and from Norway (bombers only w/o figher escort). But in today's scanario, with the advent of stand-off missiles & long-legged fighters/bombers (in the class of the Flankers/Blackjet/Backfires) coupled with AAR, the RAF will not be facing an an enemy that sufferred from the limits that faced the Luftwaffe of the 1940s. Btw, traditionally the scope of (patrol) ops for RAF is the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) gap, and that's where Tornado F-3 long range was appreciated. Come on, I don't think any decent fighter pilots would like multiple AAR attempts esp in a hot job, surely no one wants to be caught with their pants down when the enemy pops-up when in the 'act' of AAR! Any pilots here want to disagree with me?
Personally, by the time the RAF meets any aggressor near their shore, I'll be worried that do they (esp those in non-STOVL types) have a place to land after their encounter in the air or they can still identify whatever is left of London.
Yes, the Mustang helped to war the war over Germany BUT not b'cos it has the range but alot of other factors. eg the Luftwaffe senior leadership had always treated the Luftwaffe as a tactical AF rather than a Strategic AF etc. Tactical as the German Army commanders had always treated the Luftwaffe as a flying artillery to help the army in its blitzkreig. Like after bombing, the softened-land targets will be immediately exploited by a ground army. But when come to the Battle of Britain, w/o a land army, no matter how hard the Luftwaffe pounded the UK land defences, such acts is considered fruitless & pointless as the short gains could not be exploited on the ground therefore it became simply as an aerial attrition that took a beating as RAF Spits/Hurricanes could pounce on returning fuel-starved 109 pilots.
The fact is no doubt the Typhoon was derived in the 1980s, but along the years it was evolved to meet futures threats esp it wqas evolved to be super manoevorable to meet the SU-27/30 series. And mind you, dogfights don't happen in high Mach numbers but more in subsonic speeds. If give me to select between the victor between a Tphoon/Flanker encounter (discounting BVR missile enagements), I would pick the Typhoon having a very slight edge over the Flanker. And how about an Eagle/Flanker engagement? errrr......
Therefore, I seriously doubt the Typhoon to be considered just a short-legged fighter and I don't think the current RAF planners share the same myopic vision that plagued the 1940s Luftwaffe in having a short-legged Typhoon.
P/s I had came across an Int'l Avaiation mag report that there was an incident that happened in UK airpace during that time when the Typhhon was being delivered for trials and apparently 2 Lakenhealth-based Eagles decide to takle on the 'newbies' and they (Eagle pilots) came out shock over the engagement...now I'm not sure did this engagement did take place but apparently this 'piece' of info was suppressed by the official media.
[/b]
One, they operated over friendly territory, and had then, sophisticated radar systems that permitted them to intercept the Germans. Their pilots that were shot down could be picked up, patched up, and sent back to their squadrons. Luftwaffe pilots were either captured or worst, froze to death in the Channel.
Second. Like you said, the Germans had a tactical air force, not a Strategic one. Luftwaffe escorts had limited fuel that they could only engage or fend off the Brits for short period of time before returning back to base. German bombers were also less effective in the role they were supposed to play.
Third, a less known detail. The luftwaffe expended much of their veteran flight instructors over the Netherlands in transport planes. Many of them were shot down, and valuable flight instruction experience lost.
Britain was rather useless in contributing to the Strategic bombing campaign over Nazi Germany simply cause their fighters couldn't escort the bombers all the way. It was until the Mustang showed up, where the Americans were able to have their bombers escorted all the way to the target area and back.
Personally, I wouldn't give the Typhoon's agility too much credit in modern air warfare. Most people who follow up in this, or even if you ask Air Force officers who are senior enough will tell you that no one wants to press for a merge. Especially if you are numerically inferior. Hence, it is unrealistic to discount BVR engagements.
Secondly, high off-boresight weapons such as the Sidewinder X, R-73 makes agility less of any issue. As usual, superior turn rate is preferred over the ability to sustain a high-aoa-energy bleeding turn. If they don't kill in that turn, they are in trouble. Even if you get shot by one of these missiles, that little agility edge isn't going to save you.
As for whether the RAF planners are myopic, I wouldn't say that. But I'd say that they are politically committed typhoon already, and cannot back out. Besides, its not a totally lousy plane or anything. It serves its purpose as a dual role fighter, and has exceptional handling. No reason to call the Brits myopic.
Neither is there any reason to deem the F-15SG to be incapable of handling flanker threats. You can't kill what you can't lock. Its not stealth, but it has the next best thing, powerful jammers. -
Forecasted Eagle purchase is 80...Originally posted by OldBird69:I think it is most likely the F-15SG again - for commonality with the existing F-15SG fleet. Didn't we sign contract for 12 with option for 8 more? My friend (pilot in RSAF) told me RSAF always exercise option to the max, so we'll probably have 20 F-15SG until we sign new contract for more.
RSAF can feel confident with F-15 and F-16 fleet since our friend in Mideast used these planes successfully in Iraq's Osirak reactor (Operation Opera) in 1980's and recent Operation Orchard in Syria.
My only concern is both F-15 and F-16 will be using the GE F110 engine. What are the chances that they will ALL be grounded if it is found in future there is a widespread flaw during manufacture (such cracks) in the GE engine, as has happened to several jet/heli engines. It will make us very vulnerable if all our strike aircraft grounded due to engine flaw.
Anyway, those who think the Eagle is crap, I've got nothing to say. The F-15SG airframe and avionics are a totally new plane compared to the USAF E and C models. -
Hello what are you talking ? You did not bother to read !!! Just yelling for the sake of yelling that tyhoon is the best .... !!! Yes but not in all area !!! There is still area that it does not have advantage over F-15 !!!Originally posted by duotiga83:word of qn have you seen Typhoon QRA configuration?
for goodness sake.....all planes can carry 3 fuel tanks + air refueling capability....your reasoning is not good to me though
Of course all planes can carry 3 tanks andhave the refueling capability !!! But my scenerio is you you need a long range mission, without available fuel tankers support.
But for a long range of some distance - to carry the fuel needed - the typhoon with conformal tanks still need all 3 external tanks attached match the F-15 with conformal tanks only . This is why in extreme long range as analyst put it - F-15 will have advantage .
Of course you can alway say - can jetson the tanks then the typhoon will be be super agile again ? of course you can do that , but then you do not have the fuel to go home !!! In this sense F-15 does have the advantage in this type of situation !!! -
Just to clarify something.
Our F-16's have the PW engines. Hence designated Block 52. Those that carry the GE engines are designated Block 50, eg those belonging to ROKAF.
Our F-15SGs are equipped with GE engines. Same engines as the ROKAF F-16s. -
Although i would also like to see a new type of plane in the RSAF's inventory, I believe that it would eventually be the F15SG and the F 16s again.
Its a proven battle plan. Unless something important pops up or changes the leverage in this region, i doubt there would be a new type.
Prove me wrong RSAF, pls.
-
in real world you need to jetison fuel tanks for dogfghts......fuel tanks are meant for ferry flights.....are you saying that older generation a/c are better than the current 1? might as well dont replace it n keep using itOriginally posted by storywolf:Hello what are you talking ? Of course all planes can carry 3 tanks. Even if they have the refueling capability !!! But my scenerio is you you need a long range mission, without available fuel tankers support.
But for a long range of some distance - to carry the fuel needed - the typhoon with conformal tanks still need all 3 external tanks attached match the F-15 with conformal tanks only . This is why in extreme long range as analyst put it - F-15 will have advantage !!!
Of course you can alway say - can jetson the tanks then the typhoon will be be super agile again ? of course you can do that , but then you do not have the fuel to go home !!! In this sense F-15 does have the advantage in this type of situation !!!
oh another thing....do you just rely on 1 article only or got other articles to prove your reasoning? thanks a million -
in real world you need to jetison fuel tanks for dogfghts......fuel tanks are meant for ferry flights.....are you saying that older generation a/c are better than the current 1? might as well dont replace it n keep using itOriginally posted by duotiga83:in real world you need to jetison fuel tanks for dogfghts......fuel tanks are meant for ferry flights.....are you saying that older generation a/c are better than the current 1? might as well dont replace it n keep using it
oh another thing....do you just rely on 1 article only or got other articles to prove your reasoning? thanks a million
Fuel tanks are for ferry flights ! for long distance mission - you will need fuel to ferry flight all the way there, and after ferry back home !!! You seem to alway ignore the fact that the moment you eject the tanks , you will not have enough fuel to ferry flight home !!!
Ok then you just prove my point !!! F-15 with conformal tanks can fight it out and come back ....!!! Typhoon have to eject it's tanks to fight, but then in the process it does have enough onboard fuel to come back !!! - this is not a question of who is the better fighter my friend, it is the question of internal, conformal fuel loading capacity !!!
Please do not use F-15A to compare with euro fighter !!! F-15E is a redesign with structure changes and improvement + better engine !!!
1st flight date of F-15E is 11th December 1986
1st flight date of EAP (eurofighter) August 1986
They are actually not that far apart in development dates - except people mistakenly use F-15A first flight date to compare with eurofighter !!!
So you are saying all things new must be better then new ones - very dumb comments ... !!! Every plane have its good and bad !!! I am just mention a weakness in eurofighter - and here you are like a spoilt kid jump up and down screamming no way !!!
Grow up, everything has a weakness - the eurofighter was design to be a top air to air plane it be stupid to put a big internal fuel tank inside to reduce its agile performance !! While a F-15 is for long range mission - thus it give up some air to air performance for super huge tanks !!! -
Yeap...i very much agree that F15SG will be chosen again. Because simply its tested, proven and "fark-proof" so to speak. However, I did say that the Gripen does stand a chance greater den that of the likes of Rafale and Typhoon (though I wish to see them over our skies decked with RSAF logo etc.) but I have to admit..F15SG will most probably be chosen yet again. However, I'm not too sure as to why Gripen has been side-lined by some, because the size of the Gripen is about that of the F5. And I believe is has STOL capability that a full sized big-mother of an F15SG is unable to.Imagine having primary runways knocked out...with our PIE,CTE,SLE,TPE etc.etc...wouldn't it be prudent to have something small nimble and yet provide you with a capability to bite back and return to easily hide?
Also, in a dogfight...the pilot whom see's first, and is able to lock first wins. Simple as that...and a Gripen in the air...cuts a smaller profile den that of an F15SG...thats a undeniable fact. It is harder to spot, smaller, nimbler and more agile. Even with off-bore weapons, you still require to lock before engaging. I believe, even with helmet mounted, weapon sighting systems, you still require a good lock to engage your target effectively. So I would say...if budget and logistics weren't a problem...Gripen is a worth contender. But sadly...F15SG is most prob. what we will get. -
think it may have to do with the issue of the malaysia airspace .... less powerful figther -gripen may have to turn and turn to climb to operation height to avoid malaysia airspace . While F-15SG it just use its raw power to climb up to operation height direct without wasting time in turn and climb.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Yeap...i very much agree that F15SG will be chosen again. Because simply its tested, proven and "fark-proof" so to speak. However, I did say that the Gripen does stand a chance greater den that of the likes of Rafale and Typhoon (though I wish to see them over our skies decked with RSAF logo etc.) but I have to admit..F15SG will most probably be chosen yet again. However, I'm not too sure as to why Gripen has been side-lined by some, because the size of the Gripen is about that of the F5. And I believe is has STOL capability that a full sized big-mother of an F15SG is unable to.Imagine having primary runways knocked out...with our PIE,CTE,SLE,TPE etc.etc...wouldn't it be prudent to have something small nimble and yet provide you with a capability to bite back and return to easily hide?
Also, in a dogfight...the pilot whom see's first, and is able to lock first wins. Simple as that...and a Gripen in the air...cuts a smaller profile den that of an F15SG...thats a undeniable fact. It is harder to spot, smaller, nimbler and more agile. Even with off-bore weapons, you still require to lock before engaging. I believe, even with helmet mounted, weapon sighting systems, you still require a good lock to engage your target effectively. So I would say...if budget and logistics weren't a problem...Gripen is a worth contender. But sadly...F15SG is most prob. what we will get. -
Estimation of the distance and amount of fuel usage is critical. Jetison the drop tank,u still have the internal fuel to send u back if yr estimation is well planned.Originally posted by storywolf:in real world you need to jetison fuel tanks for dogfghts......fuel tanks are meant for ferry flights.....are you saying that older generation a/c are better than the current 1? might as well dont replace it n keep using it
Fuel tanks are for ferry flights ! for long distance mission - you will need fuel to ferry flight all the way there, and after ferry back home !!! You seem to alway ignore the fact that the moment you eject the tanks , you will not have enough fuel to ferry flight home !!!
Ok then you just prove my point !!! F-15 with conformal tanks can fight it out and come back ....!!! Typhoon have to eject it's tanks to fight, but then in the process it does have enough onboard fuel to come back !!! - this is not a question of who is the better fighter my friend, it is the question of internal, conformal fuel loading capacity !!!
Please do not use F-15A to compare with euro fighter !!! F-15E is a redesign with structure changes and improvement + better engine !!!
1st flight date of F-15E is 11th December 1986
1st flight date of EAP (eurofighter) August 1986
They are actually not that far apart in development dates - except people mistakenly use F-15A first flight date to compare with eurofighter !!!
So you are saying all things new must be better then new ones - very dumb comments ... !!! Every plane have its good and bad !!! I am just mention a weakness in eurofighter - and here you are like a spoilt kid jump up and down screamming no way !!! Grow up, everything has a weakness - the eurofighter was design to be a top air to air plane it be stupid to put a big internal fuel tank inside to reduce its performance !! While a F-15 is for long range mission -thus it give up some air to air performance for super huge tanks !!! -
Is SG F-15 body frame old or new?
-
brand newOriginally posted by Arapahoe:Is SG F-15 body frame old or new?