• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Why RSAF buy expensive Gulfstream private jet for early warning radar?

Cost-effective solution to use the A4's? I doubt so. They are meant more for the naval air force, hence their short wings and the materials used in manufacturing aircraft in marine environment. Not really suitable for a land force. The A4s are about 50 years old, time to retire them before they start to fall from the skies one by one. Our pilots' lives are precious,

There really isn't a lot of cheap options out there to operate a fixed wing aircraft and ready spares.

USA - F-14(decomm)/F/A-18 (expensive)/F-35C (yeah right)/Harrier (funny they didn't consider this one)
France - Rafale M/Super Etendard (funny they didn't consider Super Etendard)
UK - Sea Harrier (funny they didn't consider this one)
Russia - MIG-29K/SU-33 (cheap but always a logistics and maintenance nightmare)

I supposed US of A has a lot of spares lying in the Mojave desert for the Brazillians
 
There really isn't a lot of cheap options out there to operate a fixed wing aircraft and ready spares.

USA - F-14(decomm)/F/A-18 (expensive)/F-35C (yeah right)/Harrier (funny they didn't consider this one)
France - Rafale M/Super Etendard (funny they didn't consider Super Etendard)
UK - Sea Harrier (funny they didn't consider this one)
Russia - MIG-29K/SU-33 (cheap but always a logistics and maintenance nightmare)

I supposed US of A has a lot of spares lying in the Mojave desert for the Brazillians

i don't think we'll buy russian, lest it pissed off big brother. I know we got the IGLA, but i still don't understand why we got this POS with a terrible kill rate. Only perk is its F&F and it's lighter than the frenchie ones.

harriers have also been in service for a long long time already so i don't think they'll be considered.

then again i don't think we'll get F18. you know how solid our SADA (or SALA) are, skali pak chiow shoot down own aircraft how? :D
 
i don't think we'll buy russian, lest it pissed off big brother. I know we got the IGLA, but i still don't understand why we got this POS with a terrible kill rate. Only perk is its F&F and it's lighter than the frenchie ones.

harriers have also been in service for a long long time already so i don't think they'll be considered.

then again i don't think we'll get F18. you know how solid our SADA (or SALA) are, skali pak chiow shoot down own aircraft how? :D

Only a few countries operate the F-18s as their primary fighter. cheaper to use the F-5s and F-16s with upgrades lah

I wonder when they will upgrade the F-16 into a stealth-capable fighter like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Silent_Eagle
 
Last edited:
this will be nice, but the radar folks will have a big headache on their hands.

good point, you would need an AESA rader to conceal the electronic emission and increase its effectiveness
 
Engines are interchangeable that is correct. Mandatory life cycles for structures do exist but in this case I have no idea how much stress has been absorbed by these aircraft. These have flown for 25 years practically non-stop so....

We do not wait for aircraft to crash before we retire them. If you say "There is no mandatory "retirement age" for aircraft." you mean to say there is no retirement?

I said already, they can fly them for as long as they are structurally sound and I expect our E2C to be so since ours are not subjected to high Gs flying and hard carrier landing. . I am not insisting that we continue to use them when it no longer airworthy. We still get alot WW2 vintage flying without much problem. U can even get a 1948 Cessna and it cheaper than a car.

http://www.aso.com/listings/AircraftListings.aspx?mg_id=86&act_id=1&mmg=true
 
There really isn't a lot of cheap options out there to operate a fixed wing aircraft and ready spares.

USA - F-14(decomm)/F/A-18 (expensive)/F-35C (yeah right)/Harrier (funny they didn't consider this one)
France - Rafale M/Super Etendard (funny they didn't consider Super Etendard)
UK - Sea Harrier (funny they didn't consider this one)
Russia - MIG-29K/SU-33 (cheap but always a logistics and maintenance nightmare)

I supposed US of A has a lot of spares lying in the Mojave desert for the Brazillians

In the early days, we could not afford to purchase the latest military equipment and even if we could afford, the powers that be, will not allow it. At one time we were ready to buy the F16 but instead when we finally got the permission, we did not get the latest version but a toned down one. We were already eyeing the F15 but were not allowed and the choice was betwen the F16 or F18.

Now we can afford to buy the latest and I am sure any of those countries of manufacture is eager to sell to us, that is how desperate their defence industries are.

Why would we want to go for old and cheaper options when we can afford the best?
 
I said already, they can fly them for as long as they are structurally sound and I expect our E2C to be so since ours are not subjected to high Gs flying and hard carrier landing. . I am not insisting that we continue to use them when it no longer airworthy. We still get alot WW2 vintage flying without much problem. U can even get a 1948 Cessna and it cheaper than a car.

http://www.aso.com/listings/AircraftListings.aspx?mg_id=86&act_id=1&mmg=true

I know where you are coming from but we need not do. You and I do not have the knowledge and know much about our defence requirements. Neither do we have any knowledge of the condition of the E-2C's. So based on what we know, and since the E-2C's have been replaced, we can just make conjectures on the reasons.

Even though there is no retirement age, there must come a day when a decision has to be made.
 
this will be nice, but the radar folks will have a big headache on their hands.

good point, you would need an AESA rader to conceal the electronic emission and increase its effectiveness

Simce there are so few Singaporeans and training pilots are very expensive I would prefer to buy drones. Get a fleet of these that can be safely hidden and then launch an attack, guided from the G550. It will be less costly and devastating for the enemy.
 
Simce there are so few Singaporeans and training pilots are very expensive I would prefer to buy drones. Get a fleet of these that can be safely hidden and then launch an attack, guided from the G550. It will be less costly and devastating for the enemy.

good point, i think this will work since there's quite abit of chao keng soldiers who are not combat fit but will not have problem sitting infront of the computer.

get them to fly remote control drones should not be a problem. :D
 
The E-2C is 25 years old bro. How long do you expect them to fly? The replacement is about due don't you think?

For non high performance planes like E-2C, age has very little to do with it. B-52s are over 40 years old, and the US, Israel, Japan, etc, still operate the E-2, and are very happy with it. Now they got all sorts of service life extension program for the planes i.e replacing the wing box spar, new engines, under cart, etc. Properly maintain, the airframes will last another 25 years. Its the electronics that make the plane what it is, and these are continually upgraded.
 
It is not the same, different engines and performance-wise cannot beat the G550. There are already about 200 G550 in service.

U are comparing apples and oranges. There are only 9 G550 AEW in the world. The other G550 u are referring to are civilian executive jets. When u put conformal radar all over the plane's fuselage and load it up with 1,000lbs of electronics, cooling units, bigger APU, etc. the flight profile will change.
 
We did not do much to their structure, only at certain locations when we re-engine the A4s. Most refurbishment are on avionics which is what is onboard the aircraft.

We can do the same for the E-2C's but the structure needs a re-work.

U obviously don't know Grumman. All planes made for the US NAvy are build to a more exacting standard structural wise. This is because they have to endure catapult take off and hard landings. That's why A-4s and F-4s can last so long. This is the same case for E-2C. Don't anyhow say their structure needs re-work.
 
Other than nuclear missile submarines, aircraft carriers, AEWs are the most sensible thing Singapore could buy. Get early warning to bomb them first to stop them before they could bomb us first since we're so small, if we got bombed first, we sure die.
 
The A4s we bought were in service in early 1950's. They hardly flew and were mothballed in the Arizona desert. Their structures were almost new and therefore it was a good buy. The Malaysians bought some but we were first and we took the best. Those that Malaysia bought were hardly flown and grounded, It was a sheer waste of money whereas we got our money's worth.

Now, u really are bullshitting. I am good friends with the man the RSAF send to head the mission to Davis Monthan. He and his staff picked the frames they wanted, and they were all in bad shape. They had to dismantle the airframes and ship them back to Singapore. I was told by him you can see the rust in the wing spars. All of them were well used by the USN already. when they arrived here, they were transported at to LASS in Changi at that time, and I think even they were shocked at the condition. The first batch was all A-4B models. They were not almost new as you say, because they were also newer A-4C models at Davis. Only later on when they needed another large order for the A-4s did the US allow them to choose from the C models, because they bought up almost all the B models.
 
Why would we want to go for old and cheaper options when we can afford the best?

Isn't it obvious by now? We cannot afford the best. What small country in the world can afford $billions in losses to its sovereign fund, afford highest paid ministers, afford expensive MRT that breaks down all the time, etc. U have to go for the best bang for the buck, not the most "best". As I have already mentioned in an earlier post, the defence budget is over $10 billion. Just eliminating these 4 planes at USD$375 million can provide FREE health care for all native born singaporeans for the whole year. U telling me there is no better way to spend this money?
 
For non high performance planes like E-2C, age has very little to do with it. B-52s are over 40 years old, and the US, Israel, Japan, etc, still operate the E-2, and are very happy with it. Now they got all sorts of service life extension program for the planes i.e replacing the wing box spar, new engines, under cart, etc. Properly maintain, the airframes will last another 25 years. Its the electronics that make the plane what it is, and these are continually upgraded.

We have no expertise in upgrading the airframes of the E-2C and will have to send it back to the States. It is too cost prohibitive. It requires very special toolings which in itself is very expensive and the expertise to perform this task. To tool up to perform this very special kind of refurbishment and without any experience is not doable. Assuming we do as you suggest, what will we do with these redundant tools and equipment after the job is done? Am I making any sense to you?
 
U obviously don't know Grumman. All planes made for the US NAvy are build to a more exacting standard structural wise. This is because they have to endure catapult take off and hard landings. That's why A-4s and F-4s can last so long. This is the same case for E-2C. Don't anyhow say their structure needs re-work.

I don't know but perhaps you can tell me after how many years of operation will the E-2C require a re-work. Since 25 years is not too long, maybe 40 -60 years? Do you know?
 
U are comparing apples and oranges. There are only 9 G550 AEW in the world. The other G550 u are referring to are civilian executive jets. When u put conformal radar all over the plane's fuselage and load it up with 1,000lbs of electronics, cooling units, bigger APU, etc. the flight profile will change.

Of course I was referring to the civilian executive jets. If you bother to analyse my post, there are enough existing G550 which makes it attractive to buy the G550 CAEW as spare parts are available. Need I have to add that the "spare parts" I am referring to are the common aircraft parts and not the parts meant for the G550 CEW. Need to stress it otherwise I might get misunderstood.
 
Now, u really are bullshitting. I am good friends with the man the RSAF send to head the mission to Davis Monthan. He and his staff picked the frames they wanted, and they were all in bad shape. They had to dismantle the airframes and ship them back to Singapore. I was told by him you can see the rust in the wing spars. All of them were well used by the USN already. when they arrived here, they were transported at to LASS in Changi at that time, and I think even they were shocked at the condition. The first batch was all A-4B models. They were not almost new as you say, because they were also newer A-4C models at Davis. Only later on when they needed another large order for the A-4s did the US allow them to choose from the C models, because they bought up almost all the B models.

Hmmm an A-4B less than 10 years old are considered now new? Well perhaps it is not so new but for aircraft, I would say they are relatively new.

Rust could be due to discolouration and perhaps may not be rust at all. Let's say they are rusted, but we know that planes are kept in Mohave Desert for a certain reason, i.e., to maintain it's condition and not let them deteriorate. The purchase at that time was a good deal and I believe we made a good choice. The bad ones were cannibalized and the good parts were taken and the rest thrown away.

Now why would your friend chose the bad ones that were in bad shape? That they had to dismantle the planes into smaller parts and shipped them back to Singapore in crates is common sense, no? Why should they shipped them whole which will make it more difficult to transport?
 
Back
Top