Singapore down selects three fighters...

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:31:21 +0800, AL wrote:
Actually the F-35 is serious future contender. Probably as a F-16
replacement.

Singapore currently operates the F-16. They are thinking of buying a
new plane, call it X. If they then purchase the F-35, they'll have 3
fighters operational, F-16, X, and F-35, at least of the period that
F-16 is being replaced.

I suppose they might do this, but to me it seems an unnecessary
lack of standardisation.

--
"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).

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:25:02 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
rg
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:48:52 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:
Well it's good to dream but I'd say wait until the F-35C is flying
before making that judgement. That big wing, 56k lbs thrust (so
says RR)

Who's RR? The figure I've seen for thrust is 35 klbf (15900 kgf),

Rolls-Royce. They're working with GE on the F136 engine, which is the
alternative to the Pratt Whitney F135 specified for the first JSF batches.
The 56,000-lb figure came from Rolls-Ryce a couple of years ago; everyone
else is sticking to "40,000-lb class" for both F135 and F136.


Pretty much everybody was/is skeptical of that figure from RR but it's
notewothy that the PW version used on the non VTOL X-32 hit 52,000 in
afterburner. Considering that several years more developement time
are going into the production engine AND that GE will want to have
SOME reason for the buyer to choose their's over the P&W engine I
don't think 56k is beyond believability. But almost.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:50:14 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:48:52 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:09:46 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
think the F-35C falls in that category).

Well it's good to dream but I'd say wait until the F-35C is flying
before making that judgement. That big wing, 56k lbs thrust (so says
RR)

Who's RR? The figure I've seen for thrust is 35 klbf (15900 kgf),
giving F-35 a

I've never seen 35 anywhere. I've seen 40 a lot but that F119 in the
X-32 put out nearly that DRY.



AESA,

What's this?

360 degree IRST,

My understanding is Eurofighter has an IRST too.

Eurofighter's has a MUCH smaller field of view. The X-35 will be able
to look in front, behind and below it. Basically all around.


stealth, -9X,

The AIM-9X will have a shorter range than the Meteor (I'm assuming
that Singapore would buy it, it seems quite logical if they are
going for an air superiority fighter). So the Typhoons would be able
to get the first shot in (not only that, since they are faster than
the F-35

An assumption yet to be proven.




, they have the ability to decide at what range the
engagement takes place). If the engagement does get to close range,
the Typhoon has (according to figures I've seen) a better thrust to
weight ratio and lower wing loading.


Depends. There is talk of putting the big navy wing on the land
version if someone wants it. That plus the uncertainty of how
powerful the engine will be makes this all speculation.



F-35 has thrust vectoring, but
late models of the Typhoon might too. Typhoon is dynamically
unstable, which should increase its maneouvrability.

You have to keep stealth in mind. The Typhoon likely wouldn't get to
USE it's superior manueverability (assuming it will have it).



(BTW, is it right that the F-35's weapons bay is too small to fit in
some weapons like ASRAAM? My understanding is ASRAAM has a larger
diameter than AIM-9X, giving it potential for greater
range/acceleration).


From what I've read the internal bays don't use rails like you'd use
for a -9X or ASRAAM. It's AMRAMM only. BTW there's serious talk of
putting LASER weaponry on F-35s at some point but whether or not THAT
little goodie would ever get exported is anyone's guess. Personally I
think it would be a bad decision.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 02:28:53 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:05:02 -0500, Alan Minyard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:17:10 +0200, guy wastiaux
wrote:

Rafale also has an IRST : it's called OSF : it's got a true IRST and
another tracking device (dunno how it's called though. It ressembles a
bit the one used on initial production F-14As). Besides, Eurofigther
isn't as versatile as the Rafale, considering mainly ATG capability.
Otherwise, the Eurofighter seems to be like THE air defence fighter.

Neither Rafale nor Eurofighter is even in the same league with the
F-22 and F-35. Eurofighter and Rafae are capable aircraft, but not
capable of living in the same sky with the -22 or -35.

Then why isn't Singapore considering the F-22 or F-35?

As far as the F-22 goes *cha-CHING*

In article ,
phil hunt wrote:

(BTW, is it right that the F-35's weapons bay is too small to fit in
some weapons like ASRAAM?

No, the AAM bay is designed for up to AMRAAM sized
missiles.

The RAF and RN are even thinking of fitting four ASRAAMs
internally.

My understanding is ASRAAM has a larger
diameter than AIM-9X, giving it potential for greater
range/acceleration).

True, but it's got a slightly smaller span and it's
slightly shorter.
--
Urban Fredriksson
Military aviation: Swedish military aviation, the rec.aviation.military FAQ
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/
Weblog http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/avblog.html

"phil hunt" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:19:43 +0200, Mike wrote:
Rafale has also supercruise.

I ewasn't aware of that -- do you have a cite?

http://www.snecma.com/en/group/history/1975.php : fifth line from the end.
But supercruise with complete A/G loadout will only be available with the
M88-3 engine.
--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:25:02 GMT, Thomas Schoene wrote:

JSF does not have thrust vectoring, the tail nozzle moves only for vertical
flight.

I stand corrected. What about the VTOL varient of the F-35 -- would
it be possible to thrust downwards while in level flight, as a
combat maneouvre?


--
"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).

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:48:10 GMT, Thomas Schoene wrote:
"phil hunt" wrote in message
rg

Would the F-35 even get close enough to fire an AMRAAM? Meteor is
longer range, and since the Typhoon is faster it could (depending on
the tactical situation) decide whether to break contact.

Depends a lot on radar capability and intiial detection rhage. if the JSF
is significantly stealthier than the Typhoon , it could get clsoer before
benig vulnerabel to counter-fire.

Possibly. If the F-35 is using its radar, that may well give it
away. If it isn't, thne it might be able to pick up the Typhoon's
radar before the Typhoon knows it (that's likely that the opposiite
scvenario, since the F-35's radar reflection is smaller). But if
the Typhoon switches its radar off too, then the advantage
disappears, and both aircraft are limited to what they can sense
through IR, or what information is passed to them from sensors
elsewhere (for example, on the ground, or on AWACS aircraft).

I think warfare iscreasingly going to be a competition to see who
spots who first, and the first one to get spotted loses. So I see
passive sensors becoming more prominent, and active sensors less so.

That's one part fo the logic of the
F/A-22 and MARAAM -- put the complexity ni the airframe, not the missile.

I'm not sure that's wise, since a missile will always be faster
and more maneouvrable than a manned aircraft.

--
"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).

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).

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:53:23 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:50:14 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:48:52 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:09:46 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
think the F-35C falls in that category).

Well it's good to dream but I'd say wait until the F-35C is flying
before making that judgement. That big wing, 56k lbs thrust (so says
RR)

Who's RR? The figure I've seen for thrust is 35 klbf (15900 kgf),
giving F-35 a

I've never seen 35 anywhere. I've seen 40 a lot but that F119 in the
X-32 put out nearly that DRY.

I got my figures from _The illustrated directory of fighters_ by
Mike Spick.

The AIM-9X will have a shorter range than the Meteor (I'm assuming
that Singapore would buy it, it seems quite logical if they are
going for an air superiority fighter). So the Typhoons would be able
to get the first shot in (not only that, since they are faster than
the F-35

An assumption yet to be proven.

Indeed, since the production F-35 doesn't exist yet. I'm going on
publicly available figures.

, they have the ability to decide at what range the
engagement takes place). If the engagement does get to close range,
the Typhoon has (according to figures I've seen) a better thrust to
weight ratio and lower wing loading.

Depends. There is talk of putting the big navy wing on the land
version if someone wants it.

Presumably the land version doesn't use the bigger wing because
they are drawbacks to doing so?

That plus the uncertainty of how
powerful the engine will be makes this all speculation.

Indeed.

F-35 has thrust vectoring, but
late models of the Typhoon might too. Typhoon is dynamically
unstable, which should increase its maneouvrability.

You have to keep stealth in mind. The Typhoon likely wouldn't get to
USE it's superior manueverability (assuming it will have it).

If the F-35 is using its radar, the Typhoon will probably be able to
detect it. If neither plane is using radar, there is no advantage to
stealth.

--
"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).