Possibility of military collaboration with China?
-
Yeah alise, export and usage wise, you're right, I was refering to the info-con idea of the F-5, that they don't export tech that they would be worried about losing, hence the weaker capabilities of the F-35 compared to it's parent F-22.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Is our Igla's cueing radar of Western origin? I don't know of any other country that provides a radar for their Iglas.
Underpaid, the F-35 is really more comparable to the F-16 than the F-5. The F-5 was a cheap fighter to be given away as foreign aid and was never used by the USAF except for evaluation in Vietnam. The F-20 and F-16/79 were intended as its successor in the 1970s, since President Carter originally did not clear the F-16A for export. They would have come to reality in the event F-16s were not cleared for export by the Reagan administration.
There was talk of it being blindfire radar but I don't think so. The system seems to be based on the Strela-10M system which had a 9S86 snap shot radar and now combined with the launch module and control equipment. The radar, if anything, may be an updated variant but I'm guessing here.
Ukraine and Czechs produces radar for the Iglas as well.
The F-5 was used by the USAF in the aggressor squadrons. In fact, the USN/USMC bought the swiss fleet of F-5s in 03-05 period to carry on their top gun training.
-
Btw, it was stated on Wikipedia that China pressured Singapore to withdraw from Starlight and offered a training area on Hainan island. Singapore said it would withdraw and train in neither country.
The article was since edited away. Was this true?
PS. ironic that Singapore PRs will get to see the inside of a Taiwanese camp. Wonder how the Taiwanese feel about that.
-
Well, Ex Starlight is still going on, to my knowledge, so my guess is that it was a fake article from an anti-China ... zealot? It would be bad for Singapore to cut and run so fast from a long term friendship, it gives a very bad impression that a little pressure, and Singapore dumps it's friends. BTW. Blindfire radar? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? :P
-
How did China pressure Singapore we dont know. But even before Singapore officially recognized PRC, Deng offer Yunnan and Guangxi province, 2 provinces, for SAF! But Singapore politely rejected the offer. We didn't want to enhance the impression that Singapore was a third China.
Now Philippines is trying to pull Asean into its conflict with China over the South China Sea, it is definitely not wise for us to put our soldiers anywhere in China.
Hainan is not a good place, still suffer from typhoon every now and then.
-
It would be ironic if its a China national who is the Singapore PR. Its not exactly critical ROC installations that we're talking about.
Country's interest are like commercial interest. Saw how fast Evergreen cut and ran to Pasir Gudang?
Blindfire is an oxymoron but one that Singapore uses.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/1997/nov/26nov97_nr/26nov97_fs.html
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
It would be ironic if its a China national who is the Singapore PR. Its not exactly critical ROC installations that we're talking about.
Country's interest are like commercial interest. Saw how fast Evergreen cut and ran to Pasir Gudang?
Blindfire is an oxymoron but one that Singapore uses.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/1997/nov/26nov97_nr/26nov97_fs.html
I'm not in the know, but weren't those unfortunate SAF soldiers who got hit by the F-5, adjacent to an airbase?
SAF soldiers wear ROC uniforms in Taiwan. A Chinese spy with the right appearance and in ROC uniform might be able to venture quite far into ROC camps.
-
I've been to ROC for missile live-fire. What one doesn't see are the clearances that happen before entry. Not so simple.
Having access to a storeroom adjacent to an airbase is not exactly the same as having access to the airbase itself. I'm not so sure SAF has that kind of free access to critical installations.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
I've been to ROC for missile live-fire. What one doesn't see are the clearances that happen before entry. Not so simple.
Having access to a storeroom adjacent to an airbase is not exactly the same as having access to the airbase itself. I'm not so sure SAF has that kind of free access to critical installations.
Milan?
Underpaid, so Starlight is still going on?
Rapier was originally an optically tracked, command guided missile. The Blindfire radar was for use in bad weather.
-
Not milan.
There's a nice focus on air defence units in December issue of air force news. Shows the new Spyder with 4 Pythons. Guess where the Derby has gone....
-
Starlight? Only time I heard it stopped was during SARS period, quarantine lockdown. Was just being cheeky about the Blindfire radar, don't take it too seriously. I remember the F-5 incident, the storeroom was in the base, the storemen who got hit were authorised to be there, just right place at the wrong time. Derby? Scrapyard. :P Oh wait, that's the wrong kind of Derby... lol. Makes me wonder what the Spyder uses as a FCU. Radar Spyder? lol.
-
"The base" was definitely not in an airbase.
The base that the F-5 crashed was in Hukou army base. That houses a ROC armour brigade and training detachments for SAF. Not exactly the most critical of installations.
Note that the press release stated procurement of Spyder system which would likely have come with a truck mounted CCU mounting a EL/M-2106 tracking radar. So far the RSAF has been very careful with pics of anything other than the launcher including the FCU. Applies to other SAM units.
Official release acknowledges the radar-guided Derby is part of the acquisition.
-
I have noticed the Derby is never exhibited publicly, but if it is acknowledged, what is the point of hiding it?
-
Originally posted by alize:
I have noticed the Derby is never exhibited publicly, but if it is acknowledged, what is the point of hiding it?
They have been pretty open about it. Example here showing the 2 missiles.
-
I thought you were implying earlier that the Derby has gone somewhere. What did you mean to ask to guess?
-
It definitely would have gone somewhere. Let me state it another way.
The load out in the December issue of Air Force News has 4 Pythons rather than 2 Python + 2 Derby. What happened to the Derby missiles?
-
just a dumb question, everyone is using "stealth" as per so normal.. in a real war, how's everyone going to "see" anyone....
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
It definitely would have gone somewhere. Let me state it another way.
The load out in the December issue of Air Force News has 4 Pythons rather than 2 Python + 2 Derby. What happened to the Derby missiles?
Where do you believe they went / are? I'm rather clueless as to the answer.
-
Originally posted by iceFatboy:
just a dumb question, everyone is using "stealth" as per so normal.. in a real war, how's everyone going to "see" anyone....
"Stealth" in air combat is not new. In the old days, simple stealth may be to fly out of the sun, using the sun to blind an opposing pilot (cannot see). Others try flying in clouds (cloud cover), very high (blend in with sky) or very low (so that the aircraft blends in with the ground).
"Stealth" today normally refers to radar stealth. In many cases, it may be focussed only on a narrow segment of radar waves e.g. X-band. Electronic jamming may be used in tandem to enhance this. More powerful radars burn through the jamming. Other focus on the jamming signals. Others rely on alternative detection using different spectrums.
A more common alternative spectrum is infra-red or IR esp caused by engine exhaust (heat signature). IR-shielding minimises this (and there are also IR decoys).
Even eye visual range may be enhanced by pods (think wide-angle/FOV telescopes/binos). The sniper pod carried by RSAF F-15/F-16s have been reported to visually ID airliners taking off at 150+km! Camoflage, aircraft design, colours is used to reduce visual range.
Principles today isn't very different from 50 years ago (except that there are more gadgets).
-
Stealth is not absolute but only applies across certain rf ranges and from a majority of angles from the radar's perspective.
-
Look what came about from collaboration with Russia. I suppose they traded off the Russian radar since the system does not match either the S-400 or the PAC-3 in range.
Korea Develops Aircraft Interceptor Missile
The Agency for Defense Development has developed the medium-range surface-to-air missile dubbed "Cheongung" or "Iron Hawk" II, a spokesman said on Thursday. Korea is the fifth country after Russia, France, Taiwan and Japan to have developed such a weapon. The U.S. is currently developing a high-tech medium-range surface-to-air missile in cooperation with Italy and Germany.
The Cheongung missile will be deployed from 2013. In the second phase from next year until 2018, the ADD plans to turn the Cheongung into a ballistic interceptor missile, which would lay the groundwork for a Korean version of the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3.
The Cheongung has a range of up to about 40 km and is aimed at intercepting aircraft flying at an altitude between 10-15 km. It cost W430 billion (US$1=W1,163) to develop over five years. It will replace the American-made Hawk, which has been the Air Force's main surface-to-air weapon since 1964.
The ADD began development of the Cheongung in 2006, but started research in 2001 based on Russia's S-400 missile system. In cooperation with Russia, a Korean engineering team replaced a massive Russian radar system with a small device, which can be installed on a truck. The team also began research on a missile propulsion system based on the small Russian-made 9M96 missile. The radar is installed at the head of the missile to let it trace its own target.
Staff of the Agency for Defense Development demonstrate the
Cheongung surface-to-air missile in Daejeon on Thursday. /YonhapEach Cheongung battery consists of a multi-function radar, a firing control system, a launch pad, and eight missiles, according to Lee Hee-chul of the ADD. The multi-function radar is capable of detecting and tracing incoming enemy aircraft, identifying friend or foe, and guiding missiles. It can intercept up to six aircraft simultaneously, whereas the Hawk can intercept only one at a time.
The Cheongung has a vertical launching system. Once it is launched into air based on a piston system, the missile's rocket motor ignites and the missile is guided by the radar. The missile can change direction quickly and has little chance of being detected by the enemy because it gives off little flare. Equipped with anti-electronic warfare capabilities, the missile system can keep functioning despite electronic jamming maneuvers.
The ADD plans to further develop the Cheongung as a PAC-3-level ballistic interceptor missile. It will have to increase the Cheongung's altitude to 30 km and its range to 100-150 km.
A military source said seven out of eight Cheongung missiles hit targets in firing tests using "hit-to-kill" technology. Hit-to-kill is a key technology in the missile interception system. The ADD is carrying out comprehensive tests using computer-based modeling and simulation in efforts to achieve similar test results without the need for live firing tests, which cost hundreds of billions.
The ADD believes the Cheongung is worth W3.74 trillion to Korea, about 4.5 times the investment amount, because it saves money on imports. -
Since China is so rich, we could talk about the possibility of developing and deploying high energy weapons in space
-
Doubt it about the high energy weapon, energy weapons have 2 flaws, the inverse square energy loss rule, which limits it's effective range and atmosphere dispersion, which does 2 things, 1) more energy loss, air is an awesome insulator and 2) refraction. Hitting different air pockets causes light to bend, screwing up targetting. Which is why personal weapons and point defences are still kinetic in nature.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Doubt it about the high energy weapon, energy weapons have 2 flaws, the inverse square energy loss rule, which limits it’s effective range and atmosphere dispersion, which does 2 things, 1) more energy loss, air is an awesome insulator and 2) refraction. Hitting different air pockets causes light to bend, screwing up targetting. Which is why personal weapons and point defences are still kinetic in nature.
what do u know about high tech weapons?!!!get back to your tent and clean your self repeating rifles!leave this physics and new R& D to the smarter folks from MIT!:) -
Wow, talk about super idiot, inverse square energy loss law in A-level physics, and I suspect even secondary physics students will know of it. Swakoo, careful, someone might catch and cook you.
