RSAF F-15SG
-
No need F-15 to worry about MiG-29s. The F-16s are more than sufficient to take them on.
-
Nah, its not meant to be a match-up. Any airforce will use its best planes (as many as it can) where it can. Potential Mig aggressors can expect to face the F-15. Similarly RSAF F-16s can expect to face suks.
That's why RSAF exercises F-16s with IAF suks. That's so the pilots will not be affected by skewed propaganda of how good and how good suks are...
If not enough, can still borrow better planes from Big brother....
-
remember that our friendly neighbours up north has a detachments of IAF pilots and personnel at gong kedak AFB in kelantan ... teaching them how to fly and fight in the suks .....
one day in the gong kedak officers' mess ...
RMAF pilot: "so what do you think of the F-16s and F-15s ..."
IAF pilot: "oh ... exercised with them before .... here's how you fight them .... "
an over simplification of course .... but what I want to say is that it cuts both ways ... while we are getting a look at them ... they are getting a look at us too .....
-
There'll be hidden tricks on both sides. For example, we don't use ecm, they don't use ecm, aew etc. But there's a huge difference between actual flight which can't be totally described and words.
Even in red flag, usaf don't use aesa-armed F-15s. So far, no suk has gone up against an aesa yet.
Red flag exercise demonstrated how obsolete mechanically scanned radars can be. Last I heard, suks in the region were still armed with such radars.
The suk is an excellent aircraft but seriously over-hyped. In any case, too many other variables eg missile effectiveness have to be taken into account. It would take a lot more than simple budget scare tactics to be convincing.
-
The Su-30MKM is a good aircraft, I can agree.
Its good powerful engines, though not very maintenance friendly. The Indians had to send their engines back to Russia to be replaced whenever its unserviceable. The same can also be said of our northern neighbours then.
Its manueverable. I think no one would contest that for an aircraft its size, it can turn pretty quickly.
Its got a good avionics package. Missile approach warning sensors, Laser Warning Sensors, PESA LPI radar, Optical Location system with laser range finder. Alot of stuff that helps it to find its targets without emitting too much.
Only one problem though. It's HUGE. Its passive systems are great but its size and RCS gives it away that it'll take Ray Charles to be manning our E-2Cs or Phalcons to not see this dog coming.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
The Su-30MKM is a good aircraft, I can agree.
Its good powerful engines, though not very maintenance friendly. The Indians had to send their engines back to Russia to be replaced whenever its unserviceable. The same can also be said of our northern neighbours then.
Its manueverable. I think no one would contest that for an aircraft its size, it can turn pretty quickly.
Its got a good avionics package. Missile approach warning sensors, Laser Warning Sensors, PESA LPI radar, Optical Location system with laser range finder. Alot of stuff that helps it to find its targets without emitting too much.
Only one problem though. It's HUGE. Its passive systems are great but its size and RCS gives it away that it'll take Ray Charles to be manning our E-2Cs or Phalcons to not see this dog coming.
eh... dont use ray charles as an example. he could probably hear it coming even if he didnt see it.
i thought the malaysians had some deal with the chinese to maintain and get parts for the SU-30s ?
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
remember that our friendly neighbours up north has a detachments of IAF pilots and personnel at gong kedak AFB in kelantan ... teaching them how to fly and fight in the suks .....
one day in the gong kedak officers' mess ...
RMAF pilot: "so what do you think of the F-16s and F-15s ..."
IAF pilot: "oh ... exercised with them before .... here's how you fight them .... "
an over simplification of course .... but what I want to say is that it cuts both ways ... while we are getting a look at them ... they are getting a look at us too .....
we didnt send our AWACS to the exercise IIRC.
hidden ace up sleeves.
afterall, the exercise may be 'scripted' in the sense that certain scenarios are deliberately projected.
plus, ya think we'd use reveal our full capabilities/ EW tricks at an exercise ?
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
we didnt send our AWACS to the exercise IIRC.
hidden ace up sleeves.
afterall, the exercise may be 'scripted' in the sense that certain scenarios are deliberately projected.
plus, ya think we'd use reveal our full capabilities/ EW tricks at an exercise ?
of course ... on paper, it's easy to swing either way, in defense of either planes ... the details of the exercises were never revealed in anycase, to say that the game was rigged, that full capabilities were not revealed, certain toys were banned, etc .... and they probably were .... the playing field was probably NOT level ...
but then, war's like that too neh ? ...
the possibility of war is a function of the perception of one's own capabilities and the opposing side's capabilities ....
one can easily dismiss what the indian newspaper says as typical indian hubris, a balls scratching exercise ....
I'm just afraid that our neighbours would think they can over-reach themselves, or imagine themselves to be better than they really are ...
-
Agreed in part.Turning rates is excellent but missiles will always be able to do higher turn rates.
Radar power is a big plus for the Su-30. But I've got sources that claim LPI is definitely not a feature of the radar eg below. A christmas tree issue since the power is channeled full blast all the time (just with different frequencies due to ES).
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
http://www.migman.com/org/AirPowerAustralia/070328-02.htm
But again, maintenance is a problem. Already just keeping the aircraft flying is a huge task. Keeping aircraft flying with workable radars that have low mtbfs is another issue.
Unlike an AESA which have multiple TR modules that allow it to work even if some modules are down, the Bars has more single source parts which means anytime one of its modules is down, back to the workshop. That's why claims of 10-100 times higher mtbf for aesa is recorded. AESA pilots are going to be more familiar with their radars.
That will explain why radars for suks aren't used that regularly in exercises as well.
LPI is a feature of most US sourced radar eg APG-68 and longbow radar (google pls for sources).
NG is also working on a SABR aesa for retrofit to existings F-16s.
Even within AESAs, PESAs, rwrs, lwrs etc, there's several technological grades. Its like saying, I've got missiles but doesn't say how effective these are. Scan rates, false warning rates, ecm/eccm ability etc all play a part. How good an avionics package does the suk have, we'll see. The F-16 and F-15s on the other hand are proven combat aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
of course ... on paper, it's easy to swing either way, in defense of either planes ... the details of the exercises were never revealed in anycase, to say that the game was rigged, that full capabilities were not revealed, certain toys were banned, etc .... and they probably were .... the playing field was probably NOT level ...
but then, war's like that too neh ? ...
the possibility of war is a function of the perception of one's own capabilities and the opposing side's capabilities ....
one can easily dismiss what the indian newspaper says as typical indian hubris, a balls scratching exercise ....
I'm just afraid that our neighbours would think they can over-reach themselves, or imagine themselves to be better than they really are ...
my bad.
let me clarify. scripted in the sense, if you go google up, there's a hIndustan times or someting media report saying India's Mig 29s at the exercise (quite sometime back i think , 04/05) beat our F16s quite easily. that exact newspaper article ?
the article pointedly mentioned that India has nothing to fear from Pakistan's F16 (until that point, a unknown quality for them)
then i remembered reading some forum postings about how how the exercise scenarios were scripted. i think on defence talk or something. even while taking this with a pinch of salt, point i m trying to make here is, with respect to the original post.
Doubt the India-Sin exchange exercise wields anything beneficiary/tactical data even if it finds its way up north. it dosent provide any fresh data/additional information for analysis if its scripted. it was more for the Indians to get a feel of what the F16 is like and be aware of its capabilities rather than a full-out evaluation of the F16's fighting capabilities and its weaknesses.
perhaps so, it was a quid-pro-quid in exchange for more defence cooperation with us ? after that exercise we have had a more armour exercise and even got invited to Malabar.
in relation to the idea of them over-stretching/over-estimating their own capabilities :
i think the people in uniform are more than well aware of this. its the Politicans i m worried about. singapore bashing is always a free brownie points grab thing for them in their political cycles. my only worry is that they fan and create a political monster that is beyond their control and they end up feeding it to prevent themselves from being consumed by it.
on the other hand, we can view this entire thing as pandering to the ultra-nationalist sentiment in malaysia. offhand, Despite the frequent public anti-SG rhethoric during the Mahatir years, ties between officials were pretty close/strong. Mahatir and LKY even agreed on certain things like Asian values.might be worth spending abit of time to consider the fact that this might be empty rhetoric to cater to elements in UMNOs malay party base ( mahathir was still in UMNO at that time)
-
some info fr ST:
26 Nov 2008 DSTA enhances Singapore's air defence
DSTA plays an important role in assessing and guiding acquisition of the F-15SG multi-role fighters for the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF). Close coordination between DSTA, DSTO and MINDEF continue to support RSAF's operational needs.
http://www.dsta.gov.sg/images/stories/DSTA%20Internet/MiscFiles/081126_st.pdf
1.3 shifts to make the plans.
2.air cond is 25 % more powerful than previous models
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
some info fr ST:
26 Nov 2008 DSTA enhances Singapore's air defence
DSTA plays an important role in assessing and guiding acquisition of the F-15SG multi-role fighters for the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF). Close coordination between DSTA, DSTO and MINDEF continue to support RSAF's operational needs.
http://www.dsta.gov.sg/images/stories/DSTA%20Internet/MiscFiles/081126_st.pdf
1.3 shifts to make the plans.
2.air cond is 25 % more powerful than previous models
eh hello , u think robot write for ST isit ?
can at least be a gentleman or a gentle lion and accredit the article to DAVID BOEY ? who posts here as well IIRC.
and u missed the main point.
more airconditioning, HINT HINT HINT at something special.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
Agreed in part.Turning rates is excellent but missiles will always be able to do higher turn rates.
Radar power is a big plus for the Su-30. But I've got sources that claim LPI is definitely not a feature of the radar eg below. A christmas tree issue since the power is channeled full blast all the time (just with different frequencies due to ES).
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
http://www.migman.com/org/AirPowerAustralia/070328-02.htm
But again, maintenance is a problem. Already just keeping the aircraft flying is a huge task. Keeping aircraft flying with workable radars that have low mtbfs is another issue.
Unlike an AESA which have multiple TR modules that allow it to work even if some modules are down, the Bars has more single source parts which means anytime one of its modules is down, back to the workshop. That's why claims of 10-100 times higher mtbf for aesa is recorded. AESA pilots are going to be more familiar with their radars.
That will explain why radars for suks aren't used that regularly in exercises as well.
LPI is a feature of most US sourced radar eg APG-68 and longbow radar (google pls for sources).
NG is also working on a SABR aesa for retrofit to existings F-16s.
Even within AESAs, PESAs, rwrs, lwrs etc, there's several technological grades. Its like saying, I've got missiles but doesn't say how effective these are. Scan rates, false warning rates, ecm/eccm ability etc all play a part. How good an avionics package does the suk have, we'll see. The F-16 and F-15s on the other hand are proven combat aircraft.
Not exactly Single-sourced parts. I recall hitting some website explaining that the Bars had a few TR source, but definitely not as many like the AESA ones.
You're right though, the failures would probably mean an unserviceable radar.
Unfortunately, I think only the French could have had a clue on whether the Bars had a LPI or not. They were the ones actively sniffing around with their Rafales according to Col. Fornof.
Hopefully, we won't find out by getting spiked by it.
-
Nah, TH/SG'll probably find out before the French. MY suks can't operate without radar forever and once they turn on, they're already within range of snoops (north and south). By now, SAF will probably already have a signature print. IAF has radar emission controls/restrictions for exercises so FR won't find out that easily. AESA-F-15s used only for "friendly" country exercises which may not apparently include Fr. lol
Bars has single TR module. If it had multiple, the Russkis and Indians will be all over the web claiming it is an aesa already.
The Russkis are marketing the Irbis AESA for the Su-30mki and Sokol AESA for the LCA. However, mkms has the bars and until they retrofit, it won't be an aesa. Maybe next batch, but again, there's a whole load of generational grades for AESA.
-
ww
i wander how many configure that F 15 SG can be equipped?
When one considers that there are about 500 different ways to load an F-16 fighter plane with weapons, sensors and fuel tanks, the complexity of the task RSAF air warfare planners and air force ground crew face becomes clear.
,.....................
There is no point in buying top-of-the-line combat aircraft if the know-how to maintain and modify these planes resides in a foreign country. Or if maintenance problems result in these aircraft becoming hangar queens, constantly under repair.http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View,11170,
Sep 30, 2008
SINGAPORE'S AIR POWER
It's not just about fighter aircraft
By David Boey
SINGAPORE'S warplanes remain young though the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) celebrated its 40th anniversary this month.bbb
-
just a photo.no comment.
SG-1 on test fly.
STimes 26.11.2008 by David Boey
-
Originally posted by slim10:
Nah, TH/SG'll probably find out before the French. MY suks can't operate without radar forever and once they turn on, they're already within range of snoops (north and south). By now, SAF will probably already have a signature print. IAF has radar emission controls/restrictions for exercises so FR won't find out that easily. AESA-F-15s used only for "friendly" country exercises which may not apparently include Fr. lol
Bars has single TR module. If it had multiple, the Russkis and Indians will be all over the web claiming it is an aesa already.
The Russkis are marketing the Irbis AESA for the Su-30mki and Sokol AESA for the LCA. However, mkms has the bars and until they retrofit, it won't be an aesa. Maybe next batch, but again, there's a whole load of generational grades for AESA.
Yeap, you're right. Single T/R source for the Bars N011M. It was the Irbis-E (snow leopard that introduced 2 Chelnok travelling wave tube transmitters.
It seems that the Bars doesn't have LPI, due to some lack of data processing capability. I suspect it probably won't know how to differentiate what is background noise from what returned from its own low power emission. I don't think its at its peak power most of the time... that sounds to be rather... erm maintenance intensive?
The last Russian AESA I saw on AusAirpower was on the Zhuk, not sure if those u mentioned are newer than that or not.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
Nah, TH/SG'll probably find out before the French. MY suks can't operate without radar forever and once they turn on, they're already within range of snoops (north and south). By now, SAF will probably already have a signature print. IAF has radar emission controls/restrictions for exercises so FR won't find out that easily. AESA-F-15s used only for "friendly" country exercises which may not apparently include Fr. lol
Bars has single TR module. If it had multiple, the Russkis and Indians will be all over the web claiming it is an aesa already.
The Russkis are marketing the Irbis AESA for the Su-30mki and Sokol AESA for the LCA. However, mkms has the bars and until they retrofit, it won't be an aesa. Maybe next batch, but again, there's a whole load of generational grades for AESA.
hmm, dont mind me asking. having a signature print, how does it help us in elint / warfare ?
search , track and jam ?
-
Radars operate on frequency. Having another signal on the same frequency jams the frequency. Kinda like how radio 98.7, 95 etc in SG all have specific frequency so they don't jam each other. If you've tried tuning into 88.9 BBC, you'd know how minor frequencies sharing the same would make it difficult to find that frequency.
That's how jamming works. If one knows the frequency in which radars operate, then one knows what frequency to use. That's the basic ew fundamental. EW is of course a lot more complex than that. There are many forms of jamming and eccm-wise, there are things like frequency hopping etc to evade jamming.
Also, as different equipment operate in different frequencies, one can identify the type of radar used esp on missiles. If missiles can be "id"-ed one can deploy the right combination of jammer, chaff or flares to distract the missile. That's something the Israelis and USAF have an edge on. Also, that's also a major boo-boo when a plane like the EP-3 falls into the wrong hands....
-
Originally posted by slim10:
Radars operate on frequency. Having another signal on the same frequency jams the frequency. Kinda like how radio 98.7, 95 etc in SG all have specific frequency so they don't jam each other. If you've tried tuning into 88.9 BBC, you'd know how minor frequencies sharing the same would make it difficult to find that frequency.
That's how jamming works. If one knows the frequency in which radars operate, then one knows what frequency to use. That's the basic ew fundamental. EW is of course a lot more complex than that. There are many forms of jamming and eccm-wise, there are things like frequency hopping etc to evade jamming.
Also, as different equipment operate in different frequencies, one can identify the type of radar used esp on missiles. If missiles can be "id"-ed one can deploy the right combination of jammer, chaff or flares to distract the missile. That's something the Israelis and USAF have an edge on. Also, that's also a major boo-boo when a plane like the EP-3 falls into the wrong hands....
i see, that would explain why america was so worked up over the hainan incident.
hmm, then how does burn through jamming work ?
-
Basically, if one radio operate with x power and the other operates with x+1 power, then the x+1 power will have some access to the frequency (but lower). Factor in that the jammer signal will need to travel a longer way (which just means degrading radar signal further out) That's why suk and F-15 radars are very respected (their raw power).
Frequency hop means hopping to a frequency that isn't jammed but of course there are wide band jamming techniques etc. With AESA and thousands of TR modules operating at different frequencies, one can guess why the aesa is sought after.
Alternatively, one can use deceptive jamming instead. Instead of preventing use of the radar, one misleads the radar with false signals. EW is a whole ballgame by itself.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
Basically, if one radio operate with x power and the other operates with x+1 power, then the x+1 power will have some access to the frequency (but lower). Factor in that the jammer signal will need to travel a longer way (which just means degrading radar signal further out) That's why suk and F-15 radars are very respected (their raw power).
Frequency hop means hopping to a frequency that isn't jammed but of course there are wide band jamming techniques etc. With AESA and thousands of TR modules operating at different frequencies, one can guess why the aesa is sought after.
Alternatively, one can use deceptive jamming instead. Instead of preventing use of the radar, one misleads the radar with false signals. EW is a whole ballgame by itself.
Then again, frequency agile jammers made to counter AESA radars can also analyse signals and jam all those frequencies the AESA TR modules are emitting at.
And given they are transmitting at multiple frequencies, their output would probably be lower proportionately to the number of frequencies they are running at. It would be easy to jam the AESA radar frequencies IF ( a VERY BIG IF ) the jammer can immediately hit those frequencies exactly.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Then again, frequency agile jammers made to counter AESA radars can also analyse signals and jam all those frequencies the AESA TR modules are emitting at.
And given they are transmitting at multiple frequencies, their output would probably be lower proportionately to the number of frequencies they are running at. It would be easy to jam the AESA radar frequencies IF ( a VERY BIG IF ) the jammer can immediately hit those frequencies exactly.
lol bro , dont u have exams or something ?
interesting posts you have here, we dont have EW discussions on the other forum. but then, pardon my noob questions, how do AESA radars form high-speed datalinks ?
-
Geee, that I'm not sure as well. I mean even our F-15SGs are gonna be on link-16. The only platform I hear that uses AESA radar as datalinks was the F-35 and F-22. The problem was with the Link-16 being vulnerable to signals intercept, and hence they needed a more stealthy datalink.
You might wanna check out this site though.
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/aircraft-com.htm
yes, I've got a European History paper tomorrow morning. I'm pretty screwed for it already though. =(
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Geee, that I'm not sure as well. I mean even our F-15SGs are gonna be on link-16. The only platform I hear that uses AESA radar as datalinks was the F-35 and F-22. The problem was with the Link-16 being vulnerable to signals intercept, and hence they needed a more stealthy datalink.
You might wanna check out this site though.
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/aircraft-com.htm
yes, I've got a European History paper tomorrow morning. I'm pretty screwed for it already though. =(
ahh,,, i see. i have an SSA tomorrow and i m pretty set for that. Singapore as a global city with kwa chong guan. he's good.
u a history major ? why screwed ? go study la