Singapore down selects three fighters...

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:07:05 -0700, Harry Andreas
wrote:
In article , AL wrote:

It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
about the Congress idiosyncrasies. Not to mention there may be plans to
do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.

Not likely. They may upgrade the block 52s but not to near block 60.
The airframe and systems are too different to make it economical.


IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15 is
too complicated and the road map is too short to operate. But Rafale
programme needs more money and the Typhoon roll out rate isn't exactly
fast.

It's all about loiter time and weapons. In a way, this almost mirrors the
Korean decision.
The fact that they operate F-16s becomes a plus for the F-15 wrt
engine support.

If commonality of parts was a strong criterion, they'd go for more
F-16s.

Like the Koreans, I think they want loiter time plus 2 engines.
While the Koreans worry about mountainous terrain and no airfields,
Singapore worries about lots of water and no airfields.
The Koreans of course, wanted a ground attack multi-role a/c
while Singapore looks to want air superiority, but their concerns are
similar.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Another stickler, will be the usability of current stock US weapons on
European aircraft. Typhoon is certified (Rafale?) to launch AIM-120.
Not too sure if the US is going to block the capability to ensure the
success of F-15 sale.



Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
wrote:



On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:07:05 -0700, Harry Andreas


wrote:


In article , AL wrote:



It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
about the Congress idiosyncrasies. Not to mention there may be plans to
do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.


Not likely. They may upgrade the block 52s but not to near block 60.
The airframe and systems are too different to make it economical.




IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15 is
too complicated and the road map is too short to operate. But Rafale
programme needs more money and the Typhoon roll out rate isn't exactly
fast.


It's all about loiter time and weapons. In a way, this almost mirrors the
Korean decision.
The fact that they operate F-16s becomes a plus for the F-15 wrt
engine support.


If commonality of parts was a strong criterion, they'd go for more
F-16s.



Like the Koreans, I think they want loiter time plus 2 engines.
While the Koreans worry about mountainous terrain and no airfields,
Singapore worries about lots of water and no airfields.
The Koreans of course, wanted a ground attack multi-role a/c
while Singapore looks to want air superiority, but their concerns are
similar.




--
AL
New anti-terrorism tool, "Fly naked"
http://www.alfredivy.per.sg

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:38:54 +0800, AL wrote:

Another stickler, will be the usability of current stock US weapons on
European aircraft. Typhoon is certified (Rafale?) to launch AIM-120.
Not too sure if the US is going to block the capability to ensure the
success of F-15 sale.

If they do, then Singapore would be well advised to not buy the
F-15, and to make it known to the American defense industry workers
involved why their govmt is putting their jobs at risk.

It's for the same reason that people shouldn't use Microsoft
software while they continue to attempt to lock-in their customers:
because every purchase carries a hidden cost of forcing the customer
to purchase again from the same supplier.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

It's for the same reason that people shouldn't use Microsoft
software while they continue to attempt to lock-in their customers:
because every purchase carries a hidden cost of forcing the customer
to purchase again from the same supplier.

Yep! No technology lock-in using say Sun Solaris or HP/UX is there? If I use
Windows I can get top of the line hardware from HP (Compaq), Dell , IBM,
Gateway and who knows how many others. I can switch to another OS such as
Red Hat Linux. If I use a proprietary Unix solution I will also be using a
proprietary hardware platform. Twice the technology lock-in for the price.

Of course no European company would be guilty of that now would they.

"The war with Boeing will continue to intensify until Airbus has 100 percent
of the worldwide commercial market" Former Airbus Industrie Managing
Director Jean Pierson 1992.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:16:22 GMT, William Wright wrote:

It's for the same reason that people shouldn't use Microsoft
software while they continue to attempt to lock-in their customers:
because every purchase carries a hidden cost of forcing the customer
to purchase again from the same supplier.

Yep! No technology lock-in using say Sun Solaris or HP/UX is there?

Your argument, as I understand it, is that because Microsoft uses
vendor lock-in, Sun and HP can't do. That's frankly a silly
argument.

A more sophisticated version is that you beleive I beleive that.
That's equally absurd.

So I conclude I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).