RSAF search for new fighter to replace the F-5s
-
"Crappy" u serious...i thought it was a sound/solid decision. In any case when u need it and it serve its purposed. U will appreciate the plane more.Originally posted by zenden9:After buying the crappy F-15SG,I hope RSAF will buy something more modern..
No gripen. It is either Typhoon or Rafale! -
but 1970+ airframe......Originally posted by Pitot:brand new -
Guess you not seen the video of Eurofighter Typhoon take off performance.....no point arguing with you..... just because is AMERICAN n have CFT is way better than the EUROPEANS a/c? for goodness sake ......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 agile performance !! While a F-15 is for long range mission - thus it give up some air to air performance for super huge tanks !!!
-
Visual similarities do not really cut it.Originally posted by duotiga83:but 1970+ airframe......
In any case, let's be circumspect. The Eagle was supposed to replace the A4s. -
not visually...i mean the internal maintainance prob if they can redesign the 'wirings' inside the airframe, aka overhaul into current standards of control......Originally posted by LazerLordz:Visual similarities do not really cut it.
In any case, let's be circumspect. The Eagle was supposed to replace the A4s.
ok F-15SG is meant for Mud Hen role ...but now the requirement is Tactical fighter.....we got more than enough strike fighters already.....time to get something more capability of it...... -
What makes you think the wiring is 1970s? The E series is already considered a fair bit outdated in comparison to the F-15K for RoKAF and our SGs. That shows the level of progression that has gone on beneath the surface.Originally posted by duotiga83:not visually...i mean the internal maintainance prob if they can redesign the 'wirings' inside the airframe, aka overhaul into current standards of control......
ok F-15SG is meant for Mud Hen role ...but now the requirement is Tactical fighter.....we got more than enough strike fighters already.....time to get something more capability of it...... -
fundamental of F-15 is using rods to control the surfaces, not F-16 *cough* FBW control......read up more dude......the arguement gets more & more absurd it gets......Originally posted by LazerLordz:What makes you think the wiring is 1970s? The E series is already considered a fair bit outdated in comparison to the F-15K for RoKAF and our SGs. That shows the level of progression that has gone on beneath the surface. -
isn't the F15SG still considered a Tactical Fighter?, and so are all the rest of the fighter jets. just that its optimised for long range-deep strike, but it can still turn and burn with the rest i'm sure. anyway with what i've seen so far, bvr is the way. with the new radars, the only time u gonna sneak one in to hit those bvr shooters is if the pilot screws up his radar management, and then what u see is prob a straight and level high & fast bvr shooter who doesn't even know u're there for the kill. even the most agile fighter won't help in this case.Originally posted by duotiga83:not visually...i mean the internal maintainance prob if they can redesign the 'wirings' inside the airframe, aka overhaul into current standards of control......
ok F-15SG is meant for Mud Hen role ...but now the requirement is Tactical fighter.....we got more than enough strike fighters already.....time to get something more capability of it......
jets that can fly fast, and high and utilise the bvr advantage, thats the way to go. coupled with the face that unmanned combat uavs are the way of the future, there are possibilities that dual-crew cockpits like the f15 can control a few uavs .... read it somewhere.. -
South Korean F-16s use Pratt and Whitney engines. The F-15Ks are powered by GE engines.Originally posted by Shotgun: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.
Cheers,
Sunho -
I think the argument to get more F-15SG is not strong. Why would RSAF get more deep strike aircraft when the skies are filled with latest Sukhois? I would rather see RSAF invest in some Gen 4/4.5 air superiority fighters like the Typhoon or even Gripen if the replacement is meant for F-5S.
-
Basing on this assumption, I'm thinking that they will eventually just get the F-35 more standoff weaponry and invest in battlespace sensory instead of getting a specialised AS fighter.Originally posted by Joe Black:I think the argument to get more F-15SG is not strong. Why would RSAF get more deep strike aircraft when the skies are filled with latest Sukhois? I would rather see RSAF invest in some Gen 4/4.5 air superiority fighters like the Typhoon or even Gripen if the replacement is meant for F-5S. -
An APG-63(V)3 AESA radar-equipped F-15C registered 111 : 8 kill ratio against mechanically-scanning radar-equipped F-15s and F-16s in Red Flag 07-2 exercise.Originally posted by Joe Black:I think the argument to get more F-15SG is not strong. Why would RSAF get more deep strike aircraft when the skies are filled with latest Sukhois? I would rather see RSAF invest in some Gen 4/4.5 air superiority fighters like the Typhoon or even Gripen if the replacement is meant for F-5S.
Cheers,
Sunho -
im guessing as an interceptor (F-5), sometimes its necessary to get up close to the intruding aircraft to check it out? if so , then standoff weaponry alone without the flight characterics of an air superiority fighter would not be very useful perhaps?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Basing on this assumption, I'm thinking that they will eventually just get the F-35 more standoff weaponry and invest in battlespace sensory instead of getting a specialised AS fighter. -
I'm not sure about jettisoning fuel for dogfights. If you mean jettisoning external fuel tanks, yes. To achieve a Cat 1 config, you have to jettison all stores except A2A armaments.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 agile performance !! While a F-15 is for long range mission - thus it give up some air to air performance for super huge tanks !!!
But no one would jettison internal fuel, just for the record. Why jettison it when your Afterburners can use it up faster? =)
The F-15's conformal fuel tanks (fuel load) doesn't affect its agility as much as a Typhoon with external fuel tanks. Again, the trade off of agility for endurance is an indication of emphasis towards BVR engagements rather than dogfights. -
Your answer carry no logic !Originally posted by zenden9: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.
Of course estimation must be planned. If the estimation is done, and typhoon need 3 external tanks .... that clearly mean even reaching target it clearly does not have enough fuel to get home with internal - If not it would have just carry jsut 2 tanks.
So clearly there is problem with your logic - I still do not see how you get home when you jetson all your tanks 1/3 or 1/2 way and still able to have enough internal fuel to get the mission down and get home..... - which your answer is "estimation" ? or maybe you mean praying !!! -
Seen both Eurofighter & F-15 take off both are impressive ... !!!Originally posted by duotiga83:Guess you not seen the video of Eurofighter Typhoon take off performance.....no point arguing with you..... just because is AMERICAN n have CFT is way better than the EUROPEANS a/c? for goodness sake ......
If based on take off - to judge a plane performance - sure if base on take off = the one with the best trust to weight ratio which is F-15 . You does not make sense !!! -
on a mission you can't plan for all contingencies. i.e u plan the fuel and config say maybe 3 tanks to bring u in to the target, that is already catering for some combat fuel as u fight your way in at out. this does not take into consideration jettisoning of tanks.Originally posted by storywolf:Your answer carry no logic !
Of course estimation must be planned. If the estimation is done, and typhoon need 3 external tanks .... that clearly mean even reaching target it clearly does not have enough fuel to get home with internal - If not it would have just carry jsut 2 tanks.
So clearly there is problem with your logic - I still do not see how you get home when you jetson all your tanks 1/3 or 1/2 way and still able to have enough internal fuel to get the mission down and get home..... - which your answer is "estimation" ? or maybe you mean praying !!!
of course, if you have to merge and jettison your tanks, there is a high chance that you will not be able to meet the target and go back home unless u conduct AAR on the way back.
so common sense would mean that if u jettison n deem u cant make the target area, u would turn back once ur bingo fuel is reached, no 2 ways about it. better to go back wif a jet and conduct the mission again. the mission might be deemed a partial success, maybe coz u attrited an enemy fighter but did not hit the target but well there are so many variables in this discussion that you can't be fully right or wrong. -
When external fuel tanks are being used, they usually would draw from the external fuel tanks first before switching over to internal fuel. That way, if you really need to drop those tanks, you won't lose fuel at all.Originally posted by cheeze:on a mission you can't plan for all contingencies. i.e u plan the fuel and config say maybe 3 tanks to bring u in to the target, that is already catering for some combat fuel as u fight your way in at out. this does not take into consideration jettisoning of tanks.
of course, if you have to merge and jettison your tanks, there is a high chance that you will not be able to meet the target and go back home unless u conduct AAR on the way back.
so common sense would mean that if u jettison n deem u cant make the target area, u would turn back once ur bingo fuel is reached, no 2 ways about it. better to go back wif a jet and conduct the mission again. the mission might be deemed a partial success, maybe coz u attrited an enemy fighter but did not hit the target but well there are so many variables in this discussion that you can't be fully right or wrong.
On strike missions, if a flight thats carrying air to ground ordinance and external fuel tanks usually will not merge. Once AWACs informs them of a threat (aircraft known to have A2A capability) vectored towards them, they generally will opt to drag, take an Rmax shot if and scoot. Any fighters on barcap or escorts will handle them instead. They will probably hold on station somewhere until they are cleared in, if not abort. -
F Lar.
We will buy F-15s. AND Gripens(hope) and Typhoon (faith). Bao gar liao. -
Well...there seems to be 2 camps of arguments...one preferring to do BVR engagements thus wanting endurance on their side, the other wanting an all-rounder to perform well for dog-fights so requiring agility. Both camps are right and wrong. Remember back in Vietnam? When the naval F4s were introduced? They were all "gun-less" with their doctrine relying on a heavy emphasis of engagements to be using missiles the kill ratio was 2.5:1 as the pilots became reliant on their missiles losing the edge in dog-fights. However, with the forming of Top Gun, which re-taught tactics and doctrines resulting in 20:1 before settling at 12.5:1.
Thus, yes having endurance to aid BVR engagements is good, but a balance must be drawn to ensure that its able to deploy enough agility during dog-fights. Sorry to say...the aircraft whom IMHO is able to achieve both...so far...is actually none-other than the good-ol' Viper. -
so guys....buying more strike planes to tell our neighbours we are preparing for an invasion?
-
missile technology and lethality has come a long way since vietnam.. so bvr is good. most kills have been from bvr shots in recent conflicts. but yea. u're right. u shud still have some skills left for turning n burning. nothing wrong having tricks in the bag, and a good jet to get u out of a tight situation.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Well...there seems to be 2 camps of arguments...one preferring to do BVR engagements thus wanting endurance on their side, the other wanting an all-rounder to perform well for dog-fights so requiring agility. Both camps are right and wrong. Remember back in Vietnam? When the naval F4s were introduced? They were all "gun-less" with their doctrine relying on a heavy emphasis of engagements to be using missiles the kill ratio was 2.5:1 as the pilots became reliant on their missiles losing the edge in dog-fights. However, with the forming of Top Gun, which re-taught tactics and doctrines resulting in 20:1 before settling at 12.5:1.
Thus, yes having endurance to aid BVR engagements is good, but a balance must be drawn to ensure that its able to deploy enough agility during dog-fights. Sorry to say...the aircraft whom IMHO is able to achieve both...so far...is actually none-other than the good-ol' Viper. -
in my opinion, i think the f-35s are out for now as they are still pretty much in the development stages. it will take a while mre before we do see them attain operational status for US or UK. the stealth capability although a plus point but nt as stealthy as the F-22 raptor. plus the chinese n russian will come up with more sophisticated radars to detect these aircrafts.
-
The F-16Cs we have now are more than adequate to cover the interceptor role of the F-5s. Hence, I think the RSAF would be looking at more tactical roles. How to use our aerial superiority to best support the ground forces. I'm just worried the M'sians beat us to the SA-10s.
-
Tat will be problematic
