Is F15 the right choice
-
One also forgets that SniperXR also has an IRST function and can function as one. Thus the podded F-15SG has better passaive targetting and detection system than the Typhoons and Rafales.
-
There is also no stopping Typhoons & Rafales from carrying SniperXR or similar pods.
But Typhoon, Rafale, SU30,MIG29 and F35 all have IRST already integrated into the airframe ; they are not podded. Primary role of these integrated IRSTs are for Air to Air role. Primary role of podded systems are for Air to Ground role.
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o So F-15 IRST is sticking outside - while typoon is inside. You mean to compare how good the IRST is - you judge by how much one dick is not sticking out ?
Dear Storywolf,
Since you brought up issue of your dick ( & in case you have not noticed ), there is a big difference between your dick & an IRST. IRST is a passive device while your dick is a highly active ( hopefully ) one.
All the new gen fighters have their IRSTs ( as opposed to exposed dicks ) built into the airframe design. Oh …. by the way, is your dick integrated into your frame or is it also podded ( or shud I say strapped on ) ??
Back in the days when the US thought that the gun was no longer needed in fighters, podded guns had to be introduced to make up the deficit. In the same vein, as IRSTs are now becoming extremely more capable, they are from the onset built into the new gen airframes . So for old gen aircraft without this capability, a podded system fills the need without having to modify the airframe. It is an expedient solution to a pressing need.
Typhoon was design with captor radar, and when it was design AESA radar does not exist. Thus we can agree that it was not design for AESA radar. But did that stop Typhoon from getting AESA radar ? No, planes are just platforms that have empty spaces on board for you to put various equipment on it. Does not mean when you first design it - the equipment must die die be design in. One thing F-15 does have more room for various equipment.
You are an extremely confused person and I offer you my heartfelt sympathies. Clearly, one cannot accommodate a piece of equipment into the original design if it cud not be foreseen or does not exist at the time. This is obvious.
But planes are not merely platforms that have empty spaces for you to put various equipment into as you naievely believe. First , we are discussing not just a plane ; we are discussing a fighter - I do believe that you are not thinking of having an A380 filled up with AESA, pods and other appendages ; after all an A380 is an airplane and has vast amounts of space compared to an F15 right ?
F-16XL did not get the needed fundings that why cancel - that also say, that sometime new design , may not offer enough performance different that much that people willing to pay for them.
We are talking about the aerodynamic performance here and again it is
clear that 1970s vintage aerodynamic design cannot be better than
current designs so apparent in the new gen fights such as Typhoon, Rafale,
SU30, F35 etc
The F16 XL is a good example of not being able to modify a fighter's
aerodymamic performance at a reasonable cost.
F-15 has full capability while Typhoon still have lots of weapons cannot use ? Look like your typhoon version have a lot more catching up. !!!
Like I said several times - there is no doubt the F15 SG or K is highly
capable & probably is the best multirole fighter in existence today.
However, the new gen fighters such a s Typhoon which although designed
primarily for the air to air superiority role during their inception will most
likely eclipse 1970s vintage F15s.
Typhoon or Rafale equipped with Meteor will clearly make F15s dead
meat in the BVR combat arena. With room to grow , Typhoon and who
knows Rafale may make them the most capable multirole aircraft in the
future & with an unbeatable air to air BVR capability to boot.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
lol. Janes also claim Singapore operates the longshot wingkit and a host of other things. In reality, it was flightglobal who first mentioned that LM was offering the AAS-42 (and that was back in 2001) as part of the tigereyes suite.
Dear Weasel,
I also do think that even highly reputable publications such as Janes ( & many other publications including FlightGlobal ) do make some errors in reporting – occassionaly. But how do you know what is reported in incorrect ?
However, what I do question is the designation cos LM's offering does not appear to be designated.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2002/LockheedMartinWins163MillionOrderFo.html
What LM does say is that
"The (current) IRST system enhances the capabilities of the F-14D AN/AAS-42 IRST that had been operational aboard U.S. aircraft carriers and accumulated over 200,000 flight hours."
Its a derivative, not static. But if you agree the AIM-120D is the same as the AIM-120A, then of course in the same basis, the IRST on the F-15 and F-18s must necessarily be the AAS-42 used on the F-14.
More important is your claim that the pirate is supposed to be superior to the F-15 IRST.
See what I mean , the reference above to AN/AAS-42 is from 2002. That is quite a long time ago. AN/AAS-42 was developed long before 2002.
http://www.selex-sas.com/EN/Common/files/SELEX_Galileo/Products/PIRATE_dsh.pdf
Even selex doesn't claim as such. This you have not addressed.
They do not need to make such a claim. Do you see any BMW adverts to claim that a BMW is superior to a Skoda ?
As to your claim that the meteor has 5 times the range of the AIM-120D, I won't even bother to address that except to highlight that if the missile exceeds 300km which it would have to in order to exceed the range by 5 times, then MTCR will kick in and its export barred.
I am seeing an increasing number of confused persons in this forum.
Again , I have to extend my deepest sympathies to your state of mind.
The MTCR was initiated in response to the increasing proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Or are you saying that Meteor is a WMD ???
I am not making the claim that Meteor outranges AIM120 by a factor of 5
Janes is - See IDR Dec 2008 issue. You want to dispute Janes ? Please feel
free to do so as I do not have any objections.
Meteor out ranges AIM 120 by a very wide margin as is commonly
known. Various margins have been reported and they range from 3 to
5 ( as has been reported in Janes ). So do you dispute that Meteor is not
vastly superior in range to AIM 120 ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally important, IFF/target ID can't operate at that range. If one fires blind, neutral/civilian targets are at risk.
Ever heard of AWAC, NCTR, IFF, data links, EW , data fusion …………………??
FYI, the AIM-120D is actually the export competitor/equivalent. Raytheon originally competed on the acronym FMRAAM. The idea was to provide an ERAAM+ (today known as the C-5, C-7 appears to be the ++ version) as an interim before the -D was actually developed. The meteor won the competition in 2000 cos the assessment was that the raytheon FMRAAM program was high risk but the amraam (eraam+) was nevertheless procured cos the Eurofighter would enter service before the meteor.
As to the AIM-120D being in low rate production, does not appear to be the case. It has replaced the C-7 production from lots 23 onwards and at my last count, 807 have been ordered for both navy and airforce.
As to the AIM-120D being over-budget, link pls. My understanding is behind schedule, yes. Above cost, no.
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/contract_detail.asp?contract_id=4655
Weasel , your link just provided the additional proof that AMRAAM is suffering from a cost & schedule overrun – see below for an extract from your link. It also shows that AMRAAM is also experiencing development problems.
“ The Phase IV AMRAAM SDD program is currently in a cost and schedule overrun. Continuing delays in resolving developmental hardware issues and less-than-expected effectiveness in flight test execution are the primary reasons for the SDD program being behind schedule. The current forecast date for the functional configuration audit is no 30 April 09, ten months later than planned with a contract completion date of 30 June 09. The schedule extension increased the contract cost by approximately 10 percent, which is available with the existing program budget.”
As to the rsaf receiving the AIM-120D, well, don't expect the rsaf to receive the meteor before all the european partners first either.
You are right. But did I say that RSAF will have priority to receive Meteor even if it wanted to purchase it ? So when will AIM120 D be released for RSAF use ? I did not know the RSAF will be receiving AIM 120 Ds - please show some proof.
There's a lot of hype surrounding the typhoon. Potential this, potential that but all is only potential. Sure, there could be even a potential stealth typhoon. You hit the nail exactly on the head. I too believe that there cud be a potential for stealth Typhoon - maybe call it Silent Typhoon – that will a great name you think ?
Believe me , there is even more hype in the potential for 1970s F15s.
Yet, what is clear is that the F-15 not only has the major capabilities, those are already existing capabilities without it being a "potential".
My thoughts exactly, thanks. But please don’t forget to delete the Typhoon -like BVR capabilities as there is no possiblity of this happening for the F15.
F-15SE already incorporates stealth. The SG can be upgraded to the SE standard. The -SG can fire all the current munitions and will be equipped with those in development eg JDRADM/NCADE/MALD etc will similarly equip it. That is not a guarantee for the typhoon/rafale and even if it could, would be later.
In life there are no guarantees. What I can guarantee though is that at the moment there is no US equivalent to Meteor - not even on the drawing board - unless it is a black project of course.
There are degrees of stealth. Applying some radar absorbent paint will definitely make an aircraft - any aircraft - more stealthy - 1 % better ?
Sure, the possibility that Matra may one day develop a 10000km ranged A2A ICBM with 100% accuracy that will be capable of being fired from the typhoon cannot be discounted in the future. The eurofighter consortium may even develop a stealth paint that makes the eurofighter invisible to radar, IR and every single medium. But that is only hot air at the moment. Acquisition decisions cannot be based on hot air.
An ICBM is not an AAM - see what I mean when I said earlier that you are confused. From the time you wrote the first line to the last line of your reply , your mental condition has deteriorated faster than a speeding Meteor.
You know, a paint to make a plane invisible may not be in the realm of science fiction after all. I hope that you are right and that Eurofighter comes out with this paint in the future. Maybe it can then be applied to the F 15 so that it has a chance to match Typhoon’s capabilities in the far away future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Just wanted to clarify some points.
The missile technology control regime governs missile technology transfer. Whilst prevention of WMDs spread is one of its objects, arguing that missile technology used for A2A can be distinguished from A2G is incorrect. This is more evident with tech like the JDRADM which has dual use. Even UAVs fall under the ambit of delivery systems within the concern of the MTCR. To say that A2A missile tech aren't covered is incorrect. It applies equally.
With respect to the AIM-120D release to rsaf, the C-7 has been released to the F-15SG. I would like to ask how many meteor or C-7 has been released to typhoon operators as of today? Yet another potential? The answer would address the question.
In 1982, UK requested and US released the AIM-9L which was then not cleared for export yet for use in the falklands war. Whilst SG may not have bought the -D yet, does it preclude rsaf from requesting if the need arises? We can't exactly request for the meteor right now, isn't it......
The answer to the question as to when the AIM-120D will be bought by the rsaf is as clear as the date in which meteor would have been bought by the rsaf if rsaf had selected the typhoon.
As to Amraam cost overrun, the words used is that it is over-budget (see page 2). I'm merely highlighting that "over-budget" is incorrect. There is a difference between higher cost, and over-budget. The aim of any program is to minimise cost but being on-budget with a higher cost than expected is very different from being over-budget. Just look at the A-400M program. Whilst cost has exceeded estimates, it is still within budget for the aim-120d program. That is a feat in today's procurement world.
Going back to reason why this is being discussed, using budgeted figures for the Aim-120D (even with the cost overruns) would suggest that the 120D would be cheaper to procure than the meteor. That is further supported by official links (accessible in wiki at the pages covering the two missiles), which suggest a difference in price by a factor of two.
As to range, it was mentioned that the meteor outranged the AIM-120D by the multiple of 5. "by a multiple of 5" is ordinarily interpreted as 5 times longer range. If this is incorrect, do share what is the correct interpretation. Now if you had used the word "factor", then what "factor" means may have been a bit more debatable.
This is different from a mere claim of longer range. Having said that, I doubt if anyone would be in a position to actually claim that, seeing that range is generally classified for the missiles.
As to the definition of ICBM, whilst not necessarily ballistic, a 10,000km ranged AAM would certainly qualify as inter-continental. As it was intended as a tongue in cheek response, I took the liberty of highlighting that there is no reason why nuke-tipped AAMs could not be a missile of the future, esp when we are merely talking about are potential capabilities. If they could put nukes onto ASMs and ASW weapons, certainly no reason why it can't be done for AAMs in the future. If one thinks it is ridiculous, it merely highlights how ridiculous talking about potential can get.
Whilst we're at it, might as well add laser-beam x-wing typhoon. Boeing's recent laser capability successes certainly makes the tech likely to be adopted in the typhoon rather than the F-15. Once that's integrated, it will make the X-wing typhoon the top of its class. Fantastic. Too bad the rsaf never got the typhoon? lol :p
Seriously, arguing that the typhoon is going to be better than the F-15 cuts little ice. Still have not read anything objective that remotely suggests the typhoon has a distinct advantage over the F-15SG yet (with emphasis on "distinct" and caveats on differing interpretations of what "distinct" means) or will be in the near future (even with the introduction of meteor).
-
o Just wanted to clarify some points.
The missile technology control regime governs missile technology transfer. Whilst prevention of WMDs spread is one of its objects, arguing that missile technology used for A2A can be distinguished from A2G is incorrect. This is more evident with tech like the JDRADM which has dual use. Even UAVs fall under the ambit of delivery systems within the concern of the MTCR. To say that A2A missile tech aren't covered is incorrect. It applies equally.
Dear Weasel,
Just wanted to say that according to MTCR website , their aim is to restrict proliferation of missiles, rockets, UAV & related technology capable of carrying 500 kg payload at least 300 km. Clearly, MTCR’s primary aim is to restrict WMD.
Therefore, your claim that Meteor is covered by MTCR is extremely tenuous to say the least.
With respect to the AIM-120D release to rsaf, the C-7 has been released to the F-15SG. I would like to ask how many meteor or C-7 has been released to typhoon operators as of today? Yet another potential? The answer would address the question.
C7 is now the current production standard being delivered for all export customers authorized to receive them, including F15SG.
C5 was current standard starting in the early 2000s.
C5s are no longer the standard being manufactured in the production lines , only C7s.
It is not an issue of C7s being released or not to Typhoons. Current AIM 120 equipped Typhoons may have only C5s simply because these were procured during the earlier production lots. NATO partners will also receive C7s when they place new orders.
You and everyone else know darn well that Meteor is still in development, so asking how many Meteors are being released to anyone is a darn stupid question.
In 1982, UK requested and US released the AIM-9L which was then not cleared for export yet for use in the falklands war. Whilst SG may not have bought the -D yet, does it preclude rsaf from requesting if the need arises? We can't exactly request for the meteor right now, isn't it......
Firstly UK is the USA’s strongest ally - I do not know about Singapore.
Who says that AIM 120 D may not be available to SG in future ?
You belittle the RSAF when you ask SG to request for a weapon like Meteor when it is still only in development and is currently planned to equip European fighters at the moment. Only an idiot will make such a request.
The answer to the question as to when the AIM-120D will be bought by the rsaf is as clear as the date in which meteor would have been bought by the rsaf if rsaf had selected the typhoon.
Shud RSAF want to purchase AIM 120 Ds , Meteors etc the decision to sell it to SG is clearly in the hands of other countries to make them available or not. We can only make a request. So unless you have privileged information, no one knows – do you ?
As to Amraam cost overrun, the words used is that it is over-budget (see page 2). I'm merely highlighting that "over-budget" is incorrect. There is a difference between higher cost, and over-budget. The aim of any program is to minimise cost but being on-budget with a higher cost than expected is very different from being over-budget. Just look at the A-400M program. Whilst cost has exceeded estimates, it is still within budget for the aim-120d program. That is a feat in today's procurement world.
No need to go to such lengths to stretch the pure & simple fact that “ over – budget “ plainly means there is a cost overrun. So they blew the budget.
The only feat I can see is that you are oblivious to the plain truth.
Going back to reason why this is being discussed, using budgeted figures for the Aim-120D (even with the cost overruns) would suggest that the 120D would be cheaper to procure than the meteor. That is further supported by official links (accessible in wiki at the pages covering the two missiles), which suggest a difference in price by a factor of two.
Cheaper does not mean better when Meteor can blow your aircraft out of the sky at 5 times the range that you can do with a AIM 120. If true, believe you me, RSAF will be clamoring for Meteor when there is no such other equivalent available.
In fact , they can actually purchase only half what they planned for with AIM 120 D ( which you claim is already slated for RSAF use soon ) & still keep “within budget” - unlike AIM120D.
AIM 120 D
As to range, it was mentioned that the meteor outranged the AIM-120D by the multiple of 5. "by a multiple of 5" is ordinarily interpreted as 5 times longer range. If this is incorrect, do share what is the correct interpretation. Now if you had used the word "factor", then what "factor" means may have been a bit more debatable.
Like I said , please ask Janes – they reported it - I have already provided you with the reference - please check it out. Meteor has also been reported to have at least a 160 km range. Now tell me is that much longer ranged than AIM120 ? It is not inconceivable that Meteor has a much longer range than earlier reported or claimed.
This is different from a mere claim of longer range. Having said that, I doubt if anyone would be in a position to actually claim that, seeing that range is generally classified for the missiles.
I believe that the developers of Meteor know what they are talking about , or do you think that they are also lying.
As to the definition of ICBM, whilst not necessarily ballistic, a 10,000km ranged AAM would certainly qualify as inter-continental. As it was intended as a tongue in cheek response, I took the liberty of highlighting that there is no reason why nuke-tipped AAMs could not be a missile of the future, esp when we are merely talking about are potential capabilities.
If they could put nukes onto ASMs and ASW weapons, certainly no reason why it can't be done for AAMs in the future. If one thinks it is ridiculous, it merely highlights how ridiculous talking about potential can get.
Nuke air to air weapons such as Genie are consigned to history. Obviously no potential here.
Whilst we're at it, might as well add laser-beam x-wing typhoon. Boeing's recent laser capability successes certainly makes the tech likely to be adopted in the typhoon rather than the F-15. Once that's integrated, it will make the X-wing typhoon the top of its class. Fantastic. Too bad the rsaf never got the typhoon? lol :p
What's a “ laser-beam x-wing typhhon ” ? Are you now using sci fi for your arguments ?
You mean ABL ? That’s on a 747 or are you saying that this can also be fitted into a fighter soon ?
Never got the Typhoon ? Like I said maybe RSAF shud - one day.
Seriously, arguing that the typhoon is going to be better than the F-15 cuts little ice. Still have not read anything objective that remotely suggests the typhoon has a distinct advantage over the F-15SG yet (with emphasis on "distinct" and caveats on differing interpretations of what "distinct" means) or will be in the near future (even with the introduction of meteor).
You are the one who needs to be serious . Please don’t use
sci fi or magic in your arguments.
Either you have not been reading enough or you are reading
only US literature.
Look out for the future Silent Typhoon , Meteor-D………….X
................. see, no magic or sci fi here
-
Sepecat
You are the confused person - on one hand you argue that planes must have equipment design in on from the start. And criticise me for saying that planes are platform - that with right space new tech can be upgrade. Then you ownself suddenly justify that it is ok that typoon did not have AESA design in - later can fill it in as equipment .
What with that Pirate is newer so must better ? is that a acceptable arguement can have facts and figure or how better it is in range of figures ?
-
In respect of the MTCR, I think our positions differ and therefore I will leave it as that.
With respect to the C-7, my purpose for highlighting it is that it is available now for the F-15SG and no typhoon user has acquired it yet ;)
As to the availability of meteor, you need to get your arguments straight. Are you claiming that the rsaf should get the typhoon with the meteor or not. Stating that the rsaf can't get the typhoon because it is in development undermines your argument that the rsaf should get the typhoon. It also undermines the claim that the rsaf can't get the AIM-120D, esp when the AIM-120D is in production.
As to your claim that the developer of the meteor has stated it has a longer range than the AIM-120D, link pls. I'm not holding my breath for a response.
As to your claim that they blew the budget on the amraam, we have obviously differing ways of reading the below.
"The schedule extension increased the contract cost by approximately 10 percent, which is available with the existing program budget.”
As to your claim that the pirate is better, I'm not holding my breath for a technical response here either.
So far, I have only read that the typhoon is better because you say so. It would be nice to read some technical responses on why this is so.
-
e simple question--
what Model of computer is currently used in F 35 and F 15 SG?
F 35--Plentium 4, mainframe, 486, 386?
(contract may be as early as 1980's)
F 15 SG--P4?(contract signed in 2006)
I am not insulting the west.
May I remind u that F35 contract was signed in 1996!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
Origins and selection
The Joint Strike Fighter evolved out of several requirements for a common fighter to replace existing types. The actual JSF development contract was signed on 16 November 1996.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The very powerful western fighters are still in drawing boards!!
F 22 are not built any more, after the current contracts run out.
Only abt 180 units would be build , instead of the projected over 600 units.
F 35--wow!! u have to wait until at least 2015 before some top brass
dare to certify that it reach FOC!!
In 2009, only 10 % of the scheduled F 35 tests have been completed.
Did they dare to test F 35 with full weapons loading and full fuel loads
to test maneuver, range , weapons accuracy, radar capabilty etc?.
U name it.
They dare not test F35 in realistic way. They just do in desk top!!--
by computer simulations etc,
Will u buy a one million dollar sports car but test in in
simulator ?
F 15 SG is like Chinese say--
one bird in hand is better than 10 birds in the bushes!
Western think they have 100 birds. But how many can they catch
at the end of the day?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Before u sleep, can u think why so many BIG projects get into troubles
----F 22
---A 400M
---F 35
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Too much ambitimous is just a joke.
Technology change a lot in 10 years, not to mention 20 years.
F15 SG, just take 7 years from signing contract to delivery
--2006 to 2012!!
@@@@@@@@@
why F 15 SG need this spear head angle in rear wing-
expert pl correct my term!
Pentagon: F-35 Fighter Plane Costs Skyrocket - AOL News
- [ 翻译æ¤é¡µ ]Test models of the F-35 completed only 10 percent of their scheduled sorties in 2009, he said. As tests continue, problems will be uncovered and "there's ...
...
JSF.mil > History > F-35 Acquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
Singapore's RSAF Decides to Fly Like An Eagle
-
kkk
-
Only the foolishness of a very noisy pussy will attempt to display its ignorance in its usual very loud ways.
Originally posted by lionnoisy:e simple question--
what Model of computer is currently used in F 35 and F 15 SG?
F 35--Plentium 4, mainframe, 486, 386?
(contract may be as early as 1980's)
F 15 SG--P4?(contract signed in 2006)
I am not insulting the west.
May I remind u that F35 contract was signed in 1996!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Since the Atom N450 processor is about the latest proven processor - will the pussy be happy to accept the F-15SG to be fitted with a few of these cheap chips to keep the costs down for the RSAF ?
Or will the noisy pussy be happily silence to have an Acer laptop fitted with an Intel- i7 processor to fly the F-15SG ?
The very powerful western fighters are still in drawing boards!!
F 22 are not built any more, after the current contracts run out.
Only abt 180 units would be build , instead of the projected over 600 units.
With the technologies built into the F22 Raptors being so sensitive that prevent any to be exported, and with the ‘cost of the F22 Raptor’ - including R&D costs added to the building costs - resulting in an acquistion price tag of US$339 million per aircraft - does the pussy expect a near bankrupt USA to continue to acquire more of these aircrafts instead of redirecting the tight budget for other hardwares related to current requirements ?
F 35--wow!! u have to wait until at least 2015 before some top brass
dare to certify that it reach FOC!!
In 2009, only 10 % of the scheduled F 35 tests have been completed.
Did they dare to test F 35 with full weapons loading and full fuel loads
to test maneuver, range , weapons accuracy, radar capabilty etc?.
U name it.
They dare not test F35 in realistic way. They just do in desk top!!--
by computer simulations etc,
Will u buy a one million dollar sports car but test in in
simulator ?
With the brain of the noisy pussy buried in the Prehistoric Age - what does it know of the computer tests that will help to identify the aerodynamics and kinks of new technologies used to design, build and test aircrafts ?
The noisy pussy can be left to perform its destructive tests to determine the durability of its skin - if only it learn to take note and learn from the strife that it has been put through in this electronic forum.
Unfortunately, its existence remains in the Stone Age and require alot more stoning before it can accept that without any gestation period - can anything be born ?
Perhaps its poor intelligence is a result of the very short gestation period that it has been through that caused it to be what it can only be in its present form.
F 15 SG is like Chinese say--
one bird in hand is better than 10 birds in the bushes!
Western think they have 100 birds. But how many can they catch
at the end of the day?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Before u sleep, can u think why so many BIG projects get into troubles
----F 22
---A 400M
---F 35
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Too much ambitimous is just a joke.
The intelligence of a noisy pussy can surely create an 'ambitimous joke' that only can be understood by its own warped sense of humor.
Without the western technological efforts that began when those aircraft designs took shape back when they began - will Singapore have the chance to fly the F-15SG ?
Technology change a lot in 10 years, not to mention 20 years.
F15 SG, just take 7 years from signing contract to delivery
--2006 to 2012!!
Singapore was fortunate to have the F-15SG in seven years - has the noisy pussy been able to see that the F-15 took more then the last 20 years to have reached its present form available to the RSAF as the F-15SG ?
As matters stand - the noisy pussy would have done better for its own self-worth if it learn to be less noisy and learn from the ongoing exchange of those having more knowledgeable than its useless noisy self - instead of attempting to make a grand stand statement of its own stooooopeedity.
@@@@@@@@@
why F 15 SG need this spear head angle in rear wing-
expert pl correct my term!
Will it make a difference if it was used to spear a noisy lion and reduce it to the size of a pussy ?
Pentagon: F-35 Fighter Plane Costs Skyrocket - AOL News
- [ 翻译æ¤é¡µ ]Test models of the F-35 completed only 10 percent of their scheduled sorties in 2009, he said. As tests continue, problems will be uncovered and "there's ...
...
JSF.mil > History > F-35 Acquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
Singapore's RSAF Decides to Fly Like An Eagle
-
kkk
Pussies can provide a good meal for a hungry eagle.
It is better for a noisy pussy to keep its pussy safe and stay indoors when the eagle is out hunting.
Watch out for that spear that you know nothing about.
-
o You are the confused person - on one hand you argue that planes must have equipment design in on from the start. And criticise me for saying that planes are platform - that with right space new tech can be upgrade. Then you ownself suddenly justify that it is ok that typoon did not have AESA design in - later can fill it in as equipment .
Dear Storywolf,
Again my sympathies to you as you are totally lacking in any powers of comprehension.
I said earlier that : -“ Clearly, one cannot accommodate a piece of equipment into the original design if it cud not be foreseen or does not exist at the time. This is obvious.”
Did I say that new technologies cannot inserted later ? No, what I said was one cannot install something which was not envisaged or did not exist when the aircraft was first conceptualized or designed. Clearly, fighter aircraft can be upgraded with new technologies as these emerge.
The point is that one can perform technological insertions more easily & cheaper in later gen aircraft than earlier ones. RSAF A4s were continuously upgraded to the point where they were probably the most advanced A4s in the world. But there is a limit to what can be done to such old gen aircraft & airframes.
New gen aircraft such as Typhoon, Rafale, SU30s for example all have canards already incorporated into the aerodynamics design. It wud be unfeasible to add these to an F15.
What with that Pirate is newer so must better ? is that a acceptable arguement can have facts and figure or how better it is in range of figures ?
So your argument is that new technology will not be better than old ? I rest my case and will not argue with you if this is your premise. I hope that you are still not using 1980s vintage “ brick” phones. I prefer the more recent models.
I clearly am convinced that new technology usually surpasses the old – no confusion here.
-
o In respect of the MTCR, I think our positions differ and therefore I will leave it as that.
Dear Weasel,
Not only does my position, but also MTCR’s, differ with your position and this is positively final.
With respect to the C-7, my purpose for highlighting it is that it is available now for the F-15SG and no typhoon user has acquired it yet ;)
I repeat that if Typhoon users do not possess the C7 , it is simply because the Typhoon community have neither requested nor purchased it since their existing stock of C5s are currently sufficient for their needs.
As to the availability of meteor, you need to get your arguments straight. Are you claiming that the rsaf should get the typhoon with the meteor or not. Stating that the rsaf can't get the typhoon because it is in development undermines your argument that the rsaf should get the typhoon.
The RSAF did not want the Typhoon because it did not have the capabilties the RSAF needed in the timeframe required & that’s why they chose the F 15SG – Must I repeat myself ? Are you hard of hearing ??
It also undermines the claim that the rsaf can't get the AIM-120D, esp when the AIM-120D is in production.
OK, so why has’nt the RSAF got them now ?? Please advise.
As to your claim that the developer of the meteor has stated it has a longer range than the AIM-120D, link pls. I'm not holding my breath for a response.
Sorry, but you will need to hold your breath till you turn blue.
In reality, you shud show us the proof that AIM 120 D has a longer range than Meteor as Meteor from its onset was conceptualized to have a much longer range than the AIM 120 & its variants. The rationale for the Meteor was that AIM 120 with its rocket propulsion did not meet the range requirements of the European airforces. You mean you do not know this ?
As to your claim that they blew the budget on the amraam, we have obviously differing ways of reading the below.
"The schedule extension increased the contract cost by approximately 10 percent, which is available with the existing program budget.”
The above says it all. They exceeded the contract price by 10 %. They did not meet what was contractually agreed upon. So that means exceeded the budget - how difficult is this for you to understand ?
As to your claim that the pirate is better, I'm not holding my breath for a technical response here either.
You must be blueblack already from holding your breath that long.
New technology surpasses the old – I cannot stop you from not believing this to be true.
So far, I have only read that the typhoon is better because you say so. It would be nice to read some technical responses on why this is so.
The “technical responses” are all in the open literature.
Sorry , there is simply no excuse to feign ignorance that Typhoon is a very very good aircraft . But since you are clearly not a believer of new technology, I can understand why you have not come across these “ responses” - you have simply missed them.
-
To summarise, it take SG abt 10 years from contract signed to FOC
for F15 SG.(2005 to 2016)
But it take USA and allied minimum 15 years to reach IOC
(2001 to 2016),not to mention FOC!
u will say JSF is a 5 G fighter. Then it takes long to design n build.
Well...What are the technology of JSF,2001's? 2010's?
I think F15 SG is 2005's technology!!
If JSF systems cannot compatible, all are rubbish!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%55
Is F 15 SG the right choice?
There are 2 answers
1.No,if SG can afford to wait for new platform to replace A4 in 2020 or even
2025! If SG can wait so long, then SG can serach for Starwar fighters,
like JSF!( I assume F 15 SG FOC by 2016, if not earlier)
2.Yes. SG has time frame to get the new plarform FOC.
Unlike western countries, SG cannot afford to slip target dates in defense
projects.
@@@@@@@@@@@@2
JSF is a classical example of western project--design and build simultaneously!!
SG is design ,then build, Therefore,JSF delayed by 100%.
JSF contract was signed in 2001, scheduled
fly the first test aircraft in 2005 and deliver the first operational JSF in 2008.
The actual first plane rolled out in 2009 and IOC delayed to 2016!
July 28, 2009
Lockheed Martin Unveils First Stealth Fighter For U.S. Navy"Internal Pentagon memo predicts that F-35 testing won't be complete until 2016." Fort Worth Star Telegram. 1 March 2010. Retrieved: 2 March 2010.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@22
By the time SG RSAF top brass dare to declare F 15 SG
FOC by 2016,JSF would just reach IOC.
############
One seater vs 2 seaters
JSF is one seater. I like 2 seaters F 15SG. Pilot to man the fighter.
Weapon officer to deliver weapons, incl EW.
Though few hundred kg live loadings to be forgo(few % of loaadings),
the extra capacity of weapon officer can compensate the decreaed loadings.
Stonger psycholigical efftect and possible higher morale.
reference
jmm
the full story of F 35 here
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for ...
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress. Jeremiah Gertler ...
fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/134261.pdf@@@@@@@@@@
top--u can see the spear head at the rear wing tip in F15 SG.Pioneer Dec 2008.
bottom--F 15 E spear head.
"An underside view of an F-15E Strike Eagle with landing gear down."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15E_Strike_Eagle
question--Is F15 SG a copy cat of F15E?
@@@@@@@@@@@
To summarise, it take SG abt 10 years from contract signed to FOC
for F15 SG.(2005 to 2016)
But it take USA and allied minimum 15 years to reach IOC
(2001 to 2016),not to mention FOC!
mm
-
Hi Sepecat
Don't get me wrong. I think the Typhoon is a great aircraft. Just think F-15SG is not worst off than the typhoon currently or in the foreseeable future for the reasons stated.
Cheers
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
To summarise, it take SG abt 10 years from contract signed to FOC
for F15 SG.(2005 to 2016)
But it take USA and allied minimum 15 years to reach IOC
(2001 to 2016),not to mention FOC!
u will say JSF is a 5 G fighter. Then it takes long to design n build.
Well...What are the technology of JSF,2001's? 2010's?
I think F15 SG is 2005's technology!!
If JSF systems cannot compatible, all are rubbish!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%55
Is F 15 SG the right choice?
There are 2 answers
1.No,if SG can afford to wait for new platform to replace A4 in 2020 or even
2025! If SG can wait so long, then SG can serach for Starwar fighters,
like JSF!( I assume F 15 SG FOC by 2016, if not earlier)
2.Yes. SG has time frame to get the new plarform FOC.
Unlike western countries, SG cannot afford to slip target dates in defense
projects.
@@@@@@@@@@@@2
JSF is a classical example of western project--design and build simultaneously!!
SG is design ,then build, Therefore,JSF delayed by 100%.
JSF contract was signed in 2001, scheduled
The actual first plane rolled out in 2009 and IOC delayed to 2016!
July 28, 2009
Lockheed Martin Unveils First Stealth Fighter For U.S. Navy"Internal Pentagon memo predicts that F-35 testing won't be complete until 2016." Fort Worth Star Telegram. 1 March 2010. Retrieved: 2 March 2010.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@22
By the time SG RSAF top brass dare to declare F 15 SG
FOC by 2016,JSF would just reach IOC.
############
One seater vs 2 seaters
JSF is one seater. I like 2 seaters F 15SG. Pilot to man the fighter.
Weapon officer to deliver weapons, incl EW.
Though few hundred kg live loadings to be forgo(few % of loaadings),
the extra capacity of weapon officer can compensate the decreaed loadings.
Stonger psycholigical efftect and possible higher morale.
reference
jmm
the full story of F 35 here
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for ...
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress. Jeremiah Gertler ...
fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/134261.pdf@@@@@@@@@@
top--u can see the spear head at the rear wing tip in F15 SG.Pioneer Dec 2008.
bottom--F 15 E spear head.
"An underside view of an F-15E Strike Eagle with landing gear down."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15E_Strike_Eagle
question--Is F15 SG a copy cat of F15E?
@@@@@@@@@@@
To summarise, it take SG abt 10 years from contract signed to FOC
for F15 SG.(2005 to 2016)
But it take USA and allied minimum 15 years to reach IOC
(2001 to 2016),not to mention FOC!
mm
What do you understand by FOC ?Are you claiming that the RSAF is more efficient in taking a shorter time to reach FOC status - compared to the more experienced airforce such as the USAF, RAF and the other more mature airforces in your list ?
In the usual ways of the noisy pussy blowing hot air up its own arse - it forget to give credit to the mature airforces from which the RSAF draw experience from in taking a "short cut" to reach FOC status.
Without knowing the stages to get through to reach FOC status - it is better for the noisy pussy to plug the holes from which its hot gas is leaking from.
Concerning the 'spearhead' - you should try to look for the same - after you take a shot with the camera pointing up from your feet, and another shot from a side view - then you will know how to use the 'spearhead'.
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't get me wrong. I think the Typhoon is a great aircraft. Just think F-15SG is not worst off than the typhoon currently or in the foreseeable future for the reasons stated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Weasel,
I too believe that the F15-SG is probably one of the best multirole aircraft today.The RSAF made an extremely wise choice as the Typhoon in its current form will probably still not be as good as the F15 SG for the role that the RSAF has planned the aircraft for.
I am only saying that in the future, Typhoon being a new gen aircraft has the greater potential than the F15 . Given that the 1970s era F15 conceived originally as an air superiority fighter still exists today as one of the best multirole aircraft today is a great tribute to the sound design of this aircraft.
The Typhoon was also orginally conceived as an air superiority fighter & who knows, in all probability it cud also turn out to be a great multirole aircraft in the future. But when Meteor becomes operational it gives Meteor equipped aircraft such as Typhoon a major advantage in the air to air BVR scenario.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
hat do you understand by FOC ?
Are you claiming that the RSAF is more efficient in taking a shorter time to reach FOC status - compared to the more experienced airforce such as the USAF, RAF and the other more mature airforces in your list ?
In the usual ways of the noisy pussy blowing hot air up its own arse - it forget to give credit to the mature airforces from which the RSAF draw experience from in taking a "short cut" to reach FOC status.
Without knowing the stages to get through to reach FOC status - it is better for the noisy pussy to plug the holes from which its hot gas is leaking from.
Concerning the 'spearhead' - you should try to look for the same - after you take a shot with the camera pointing up from your feet, and another shot from a side view - then you will know how to use the 'spearhead'.
Just based on these 2 projects, SG seem can manage big project better.
JSF, a 5 th G figter and first of class / batch figters is not excuse of delay
and over budget.
Western defense delay and over budgets are never heard in western
commrecial world.A day delay than as stipulated in commercial contract can
cause million dollars claim,but it never happen in defense budget.
Why western gavaman lawyers not
state clearly the responsibility/liability of builder in defense contracts?
2. A defense contract shall state clearly the spec of products, prices, time frame
etc. Why JSF can be 100 % delay than original contract?
Contract made in 2001 and scheduled roll out in 2005.
but the first plane roll in 2009!!
3. Dunt blindly take western AF/ DOD as models! Thet are managing defense
projects worse than SG!! There are tons of evidences.
-
another 2 simple questions-
how F15 SG 's AESA radar and targeting pod compared with
JSF's? We must bear in mind more advanced is not everythings. All systems must
be compatiable perfectly. I think F15 SG may be using more latest radar and pod
than JSF. Why, F15 SG's contract was signed in 2005 and JSF in 2001.
I know western defence industries and military is really slow in amendments
of contracts.
What model of F 15 SG 's radar is using?
The F-15SG's integrated sensor suite, which includes an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar and a third-generation SNIPER targeting pod, will provide the RSAF with long-range air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities.
sources--Nov. 03, 2008 Boeing Rolls Out 1st F-15SG to Singapore
kkk
-
sources--Nov. 03, 2008 Boeing Rolls Out 1st F-15SG to Singapore
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
F 15 SG are equipped like the following F 15.
So, can all the experts here tell me how F15 SG is inferior than JSF?
Pl note higher stealth is always compromised by lower loadings.
Stealth is not everything! u have to stirke a balance between stealth
and loadings. JSF is prepared to carry external loadings in some missions,
therfore decrase
its stealth.
- Fact Sheet - The Republic of Singapore Air Force ...
F-15SG Multi-role Aircraft
Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar
Electronic Optics (EO) Suite---navigation and attack
..........1.The Navigation Pod, with the Terrain Following Radar (TFR)
.............and Forward .Looking Infra-Red (FLIR), enables the pilot to navigate the ..............F-15SG at low altitudes at night, under varying weather conditions.
........2.The 3rd Generation SNIPER Targeting Pod, with targeting FLIR, is for the ........sighting, tracking and ranging of a target.
Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) System
Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS)
AIM-9X
Electronic Warfare (EW) Suite
Link-16 Fighter Data Link
WeaponsM61 20mm cannon
AIM-120 air-to-air missiles
AIM-9X air-to-air missiles
Maverick air-to-ground missiles
Laser-guided bombsl;lll
-
I will be unfair if i do not introduce JSF so called 5 th Gen fighter.
u guys must be know very well. I dunt think Boeing is inferior too much
than LM in the followings.
How can we decribe F 15 SG, a 4 th Gen fighter
or 3.5 G fighter?
May I remind u thay any figter jet which can fly but NOT all sysytems
go is not so powerful. It will be a paper tiger.
JSF Technology---IOC targeted 2016
Autonomic Logistics (AL)
Commonality
Distributed Aperture System
Diverterless Inlet
Electro-Optical Targeting System
Helmet Mounted Display System
Integrated Communications, Navigation and Identification Avionics
Interoperability--the first fighter to possess a satellite communications
Low Observability
Multi-Function Display System
Multi-Mission Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar
Propulsion
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
nnn
-
APG-63 V3 found in f-15SG just replaced the old mechanically steering antenna of APG-63 radar with an AESA one, so the back end data processing is still basically the same as any APG-63 which already in operation for quite some time, the APG-63 is designed and optimized for the amount of signals generated and gathered typically by a mechanical driven antenna. However, with many T/R units can be found on an AESA antenna, it’s extremely challenging for the same old APG-63 data processing unit to handle extreme amount of information can be generated and gathered by the AESA antenna. In this regard, it can’t compare to the new gen radars to be designed and built with the AESA in mind from inside out, not only the antenna but also the DSP. Those new gen AESA from inside out include the APG-77 for F22, APG-81 for F-35 and APG-79 for superbug which utilizes some techs from APG-81, however, Yanks did upgrade the APG-63 radar not only the AESA antenna, but also the backend data processing using the existing techs from APG-79. Initially the throughout upgraded APG-63 is intended to be called APG-63 V4, but Yanks found the changes are so dramatic that now they call the new radar : APG-82 and is to be the standard radar for all USAF F-15 upgrades.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Just based on these 2 projects, SG seem can manage big project better.
JSF, a 5 th G figter and first of class / batch figters is not excuse of delay
and over budget.
Western defense delay and over budgets are never heard in western
commrecial world.A day delay than as stipulated in commercial contract can
cause million dollars claim,but it never happen in defense budget.
Why western gavaman lawyers not
state clearly the responsibility/liability of builder in defense contracts?
2. A defense contract shall state clearly the spec of products, prices, time frame
etc. Why JSF can be 100 % delay than original contract?
Contract made in 2001 and scheduled roll out in 2005.
but the first plane roll in 2009!!
3. Dunt blindly take western AF/ DOD as models! Thet are managing defense
projects worse than SG!! There are tons of evidences.
Clearly your interest is merely to blow hot air up your own arse.
If you have any inside knowledge to some of the platforms developed by Singapore Technologies that so much have been spent and abandoned, and with those few that finally got accepted for use by the SAF - you will have learnt to shut your brain and go into deep slumber.
The path in which the development of the artillery by ST Kinetics was surely longer then the 10 year period - before the FH-80 was first introduced, later to be sidelined for the FH-2000, leading to the Primus.
The entire path of development was not solely a Singapore effort - as there were foreign partners involved in every stage of design, manufacturing, and testings - before the final product was announced, adopted, and the SAF unit operationalised.
The Terrex AV81 - that was recently announced to be introduced into the SAF - was surely a development that began in the early 1980s, and was an exercise first began by Timoney Technology Limited from Ireland and sold to Singapore Technologies - who attempted to market it under its own flag.
Singapore's SAR-21 is almost a twin to the Israeli TAVOR-21 - and it is not surprising if there has been shared technologies and experience exchanged that resulted in not only their looks being the same but with both having near similar nomenclature.
What would a noisy pussy know of the investments given in time, labor and money that has been spent before each platform is finally accepted, and the various units trained before being declared operational ?
-
Originally posted by 38�Ž:
APG-63 V3 found in f-15SG just replaced the old mechanically steering antenna of APG-63 radar with an AESA one, so the back end data processing is still basically the same as any APG-63 which already in operation for quite some time, the APG-63 is designed and optimized for the amount of signals generated and gathered typically by a mechanical driven antenna. However, with many T/R units can be found on an AESA antenna, it’s extremely challenging for the same old APG-63 data processing unit to handle extreme amount of information can be generated and gathered by the AESA antenna. In this regard, it can’t compare to the new gen radars to be designed and built with the AESA in mind from inside out, not only the antenna but also the DSP. Those new gen AESA from inside out include the APG-77 for F22, APG-81 for F-35 and APG-79 for superbug which utilizes some techs from APG-81, however, Yanks did upgrade the APG-63 radar not only the AESA antenna, but also the backend data processing using the existing techs from APG-79. Initially the throughout upgraded APG-63 is intended to be called APG-63 V4, but Yanks found the changes are so dramatic that now they call the new radar : APG-82 and is to be the standard radar for all USAF F-15 upgrades.
Yup. The main thing is not just the data flow but the software. The processor, like any computer, provides computation speed. However, if the software is meant to run on x-speed, then it becomes an issue.
The processor of the APG-82 is actually derived from the APG-63(v)3 ie its not entirely new either.
The processor's a plug in module.
The point is that if the software requires, then new plug in module can be installed.
The RFTF should operate in the same manner.
Just a small correction, it should be using APG-63(v)1 receiver etc and not early APG-63s. Don't forget when rsaf bought the F-15SG, there wasn't the APG-63(v)4. You can only buy what's best at that point in time.
Agreed, different AESAs, different capability.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Clearly your interest is merely to blow hot air up your own arse.
If you have any inside knowledge to some of the platforms developed by Singapore Technologies that so much have been spent and abandoned, and with those few that finally got accepted for use by the SAF - you will have learnt to shut your brain and go into deep slumber.
The path in which the development of the artillery by ST Kinetics was surely longer then the 10 year period - before the FH-80 was first introduced, later to be sidelined for the FH-2000, leading to the Primus.
The entire path of development was not solely a Singapore effort - as there were foreign partners involved in every stage of design, manufacturing, and testings - before the final product was announced, adopted, and the SAF unit operationalised.
The Terrex AV81 - that was recently announced to be introduced into the SAF - was surely a development that began in the early 1980s, and was an exercise first began by Timoney Technology Limited from Ireland and sold to Singapore Technologies - who attempted to market it under its own flag.
Singapore's SAR-21 is almost a twin to the Israeli TAVOR-21 - and it is not surprising if there has been shared technologies and experience exchanged that resulted in not only their looks being the same but with both having near similar nomenclature.
What would a noisy pussy know of the investments given in time, labor and money that has been spent before each platform is finally accepted, and the various units trained before being declared operational ?
You are here play down the achiements of SG in defense gears.
It is ok. SG will not get hurt. u mean it take much longer time than SG said
for completion of projects,and SG is copy cat, like SAR 21 rifle.
Does TAVOR has built in sight
which can reduce the burden of zeroing?
SG is a smart integrator,and not shame to admit it
1.i agree R n D in defense is a high risks exercises. U have to pay
for lessons learnt. I think the money spent in past few decades worth
every single cents. U look at this calmy then u will know why.
SG is a smart integrator, it can roll out almost all small/ medium
and important defense hard and soft wares under its name,
except few major platforms,like sub, fighters, MBT etc.
u name it!
From rifle, medium/ heavy machine guns, air burst grenade
launcher ( which country can produce air burst weapons?).
rifle cum air burst grenade launcher, to SPH,
SG can integrate sub systems from many countries and roll out
in much shorter time than other first world countries.
Money saved is not the most imoportant. Wat matter is
it show gavamna really care for defense. Defense matters!!
SG is not shame to admit it import sub system. China always
maintain local weapons and equipmens are 100 % home
design and home made.
http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/listing.aspx?pdtypeid=1
U compare the US EFV then u know SG is really fast to roll
out products.
All USA army IFV cannot swim, include Strykers!
All SG IFV and support vehicles can swim.
Bionix Infantry Fighting Vehicle
- Terrex 8x8 Armoured Fighting Vehicle
- Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier
- EFV is a classicaL example of USA long and no time frame
- defense project.
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)--15 years after first prototypes,
still in design phrase
USA want to replace the vintage amphibious vehicles
" the aging Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) which entered service in 1972[3",
First prototypes of EFV was rolled out between 1995 to 2001.
But 2 nd and 3 rd Gen prototypes have been made and Low Rate
Production is expected 2012 to 2015!
Why it take so long to roll out a vehicle?
U believe it or not. SG roll out new vehicles from concepts
to fielding in less than 10 years, mostly around 7 years!
USA and other western countries have the lexury of no-time -frame
in defense projects. They can afford delay the fielding of platforms.
they really dunt care for the survival and safety of their soldiers.
US soldiers continue use the same platform that their granddad
used 40 years ago.( do u think USA upgrade can change a lot?)
Who cares?
again, very advanced technoloy adopted in EFV is NOT an excuse!
They even no need to explain why it take so long to complete.
Can SG roll out EFV much faster?
does any one know the highest sea state that SG
Amphibious vehicles ,eg Bionix, Brocnco and Terrex can tolerate?
With over 14 years experieces in using amphibious Bionix,
i think SG can also make EFV muxh faster.
Bionix is designed , i think , for crossing rivers and not so
rough sea state.
EFV is designed to swim from ships to shore in a much
rough sea state
than Bionix.
I dunt think it is a big problems for SG to design such
amphibious Bionix.
refewrences
Program Manager Advanced Amphibious Assault
http://www.efv.usmc.mil/highlights.asp
-
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionix_AFV
ss
sss
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
You are here play down the achiements of SG in defense gears.
It is ok. SG will not get hurt. u mean it take much longer time than SG said
for completion of projects,and SG is copy cat, like SAR 21 rifle.
Does TAVOR has built in sight
which can reduce the burden of zeroing?
SG is a smart integrator,and not shame to admit it
1.i agree R n D in defense is a high risks exercises. U have to pay
for lessons learnt. I think the money spent in past few decades worth
every single cents. U look at this calmy then u will know why.
SG is a smart integrator, it can roll out almost all small/ medium
and important defense hard and soft wares under its name,
except few major platforms,like sub, fighters, MBT etc.
u name it!
From rifle, medium/ heavy machine guns, air burst grenade
launcher ( which country can produce air burst weapons?).
rifle cum air burst grenade launcher, to SPH,
SG can integrate sub systems from many countries and roll out
in much shorter time than other first world countries.
Money saved is not the most imoportant. Wat matter is
it show gavamna really care for defense. Defense matters!!
SG is not shame to admit it import sub system. China always
maintain local weapons and equipmens are 100 % home
design and home made.
http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/listing.aspx?pdtypeid=1
U compare the US EFV then u know SG is really fast to roll
out products.
All USA army IFV cannot swim, include Strykers!
All SG IFV and support vehicles can swim.
Bionix Infantry Fighting Vehicle
- Terrex 8x8 Armoured Fighting Vehicle
- Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier
- EFV is a classicaL example of USA long and no time frame
- defense project.
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)--15 years after first prototypes,
still in design phrase
USA want to replace the vintage amphibious vehicles
" the aging Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) which entered service in 1972[3",
First prototypes of EFV was rolled out between 1995 to 2001.
But 2 nd and 3 rd Gen prototypes have been made and Low Rate
Production is expected 2012 to 2015!
Why it take so long to roll out a vehicle?
U believe it or not. SG roll out new vehicles from concepts
to fielding in less than 10 years, mostly around 7 years!
USA and other western countries have the lexury of no-time -frame
in defense projects. They can afford delay the fielding of platforms.
they really dunt care for the survival and safety of their soldiers.
US soldiers continue use the same platform that their granddad
used 40 years ago.( do u think USA upgrade can change a lot?)
Who cares?
again, very advanced technoloy adopted in EFV is NOT an excuse!
They even no need to explain why it take so long to complete.
Can SG roll out EFV much faster?
does any one know the highest sea state that SG
Amphibious vehicles ,eg Bionix, Brocnco and Terrex can tolerate?
With over 14 years experieces in using amphibious Bionix,
i think SG can also make EFV muxh faster.
Bionix is designed , i think , for crossing rivers and not so
rough sea state.
EFV is designed to swim from ships to shore in a much
rough sea state
than Bionix.
I dunt think it is a big problems for SG to design such
amphibious Bionix.
refewrences
Program Manager Advanced Amphibious Assault
http://www.efv.usmc.mil/highlights.asp
-
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionix_AFV
ss
sss
Am I here to play down the achievements of SG - or am I simply puncturing your jingoistic efforts to blow hot air up your arse ?Does SG need the kind of jingoistic attempts to embarrass ourselves, or has the SAF not maintained a quiet low profile, only to raise its head at every necessary moment as a soft reminder ?
Is a smart integrator equal a reflection of efficiency - when all it require is for us to absorb all the lessons learnt from others, so as to shorten our own learning curve ?
While others have paid for their lessons in blood - we simply pick up the pieces and prepare ourselves for the worst without losing a drop of blood.
Does that qualify your kind of jingoistic crap to demean the capabilities of other more mature military organisations whom we take lessons from ?
All the bullshit you published are the "cut and paste" from publicity materials that ST has put up to polish their image and used as marketing tools.
Were you involved in the years of behind the scene ST 'private investments' in all the different programs at the experimental stage - before these were put into a package for the development of a specific program ?
The Bionix was a result of the many years of experiment working with Timoney in the upgrading of the AMX SM-1 - which led to the next program to upgrade the M-113, and continuing with the ongoing program to merge some of the various features of the AMX-10 into a vehicle that suits our purpose.
How close were you involved in these early experimental stages that finally got the Bionix program started as a clear mission to ST ?
Concerning the 1x telescopic sight integrated to the SAR-21 - it has received alot of cynical remarks about its real effectiveness - what are you bragging about ?
It is better for you to read up again about the air-burst ammunition before you go about bragging about ST's air burst weapon.
Try not to put the cart before the horse.
This is not a product that was developed by ST - and was already around as early as in the mid-1960s - with more sophisticated versions appearing in the 1990s and developed by Oerlikons as well as Bofors.
Did you ‘read your own thread dated 20 Nov 08 11.45AM’ ?
You did print then -
Air-bursting grenade in rifle,SSW , & GL --What did SG achieve?
I am here not to overstate SG's achievement ,nor to under state
other countries/companies' achievemnets,nor to offend any one.
Almost two years later, you continue to blow hot air up your arse.
Is your mind bankrupt and need any boost of false pride to generate new threads ?
