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

[groober2011]

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?

The defence budget is over $10 million. What will you do with the budget? Tell parliament we don't want it after all?

Let's be clear about this. They say, you say and I say, will that make any difference? I will agree with you that US$375 million can do a lot of good. You cannot take away the defence budget to use it for society. That is a totally different budget expenditures which the government did not see fit to set aside for the peasants.

My comments are based on the defence budget that allowed us to buy the very best of what is available in the market and suitable for our needs.

 

[mikec]

I think you got confused there. The Jews were the ones that cam here under cover of Mexicans. No Sinkies went to the Holy land under guise of Mexicans. You must be talking long long time ago, transit in Germany and what not. Now where got change passport? They just load up the KC-135 with the trainees and fly direct from Changi to Nevatim. No need to transit anywhere.

I've been misunderstood. I'm just trying to make a parallel here. Israelis come here as Mexicans and SAF staff goes there as Germans and comes back passport shows only went Germany because entered Israel with German passport. This is the arrangement. Trainees going there direct in the very long past are tankies.

Humint????? Redland???? Which fairy tale section of SAF did you came from? Mudland - redland? MUAhahahahhahahahaha! First time i heard of such a term.

Every motherson know that to get to Tel Aviv, you transit from Europe. Did you happen to hear about the 'special passport' just for going to Cuntry X? hahhahahaha!

Humint is human intellegience, spies. Redlands Jlokta explained.

 

[Froggy]

Funny hor why nobody mention about this aircraft, my favourite the RSAF ever bought I think it look very nice and simple.

 

[scroobal]

Don't worry you are right. It was done during the tentative early years and to avoid tension from the confrontation era. The switch was done to avoid our own citizens who were immigration officers who happen to be Malays from knowing the destination. Even till today nearly all western societies issue 2 passports to businessmen etc who have travel to Israel etc and other parts of the world .

I've been misunderstood. I'm just trying to make a parallel here. Israelis come here as Mexicans and SAF staff goes there as Germans and comes back passport shows only went Germany because entered Israel with German passport. This is the arrangement. Trainees going there direct in the very long past are tankies.



Humint is human intellegience, spies. Redlands Jlokta explained.

 

[scroobal]

Papsmear

You are very close to solving the Gulfstream mystery. Hoping that you would solve it by now. This might help

1) That particular Gulfstream both in civilian and military is well known for and desirable for what?
2) If it overkill for Singapore to have it which you are right, for who then and for what would it be needed for?

 

[Papsmearer]

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.

U still don't get it. The G550 AEW has station for only 6 operators, who all all be fully occupied with operating the various onboard systems. There is no space nor datalink capacity for the AEW to operate drones. They do not have the range and endurance power to do so either. That is why all drones are operated from land bases. The whole purpose of the drone with its endurance is to operate 10 hour missions or more, loiter over the enemy territory, do surveillance and strike when the opportunity presents itself. U don't need an AEW to do that.

 

[Papsmearer]

Why would they train in France begats the question. American aircraft based in France for us to train when we already have our boys in US? No the A4s were donated I believe but I need to check who got them.

The planes are not donated. Only 2 A-4s were donated to the French Air and Space museum at Cazaux as a good weill gesture. As far as I know, the TA-4SU are still in France until the new Aermacchies take over for the lead in fighter training. After that, they should be retired. I think it will happen by the end of this year. The reason we are training in France is part of the offset arrangements for the purchase of the stealth frigates. Part of the sweetener when we bought the frigates was that the French offered a 25 year lease for the use of their training facility and range over the sea. Singapore has a history of aviation training with the French, including the purchase of T-33s in the early 80s from the French Air Force.

 

[Papsmearer]

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 is nothing wrong with the A-4s. After the upgrades, anyone in the airforce will tell you they can keep flying until 2020. to my knowledge, no A-4s were loss to structural problems in the plane. Loss to pilot error, yes, to training accidents yes, engine failure, yes. But no strutural causes. The plane itself is a simple frame, none of todays composites, and fancy materials. Its easy to maintain, especially after they switched to the derated GE F404 engines, and also much more reliable. I have not heard of a SUper Skyhawk loss to anything yet. Any one who knows wil tell you that planes build for the navy and a marine environment are build stronger and last longer.

The reason they are being retired is not because they are too old, unsafe, fall out of the skies, short wings, or any other reason you have mentioned.

 

[Papsmearer]

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 mean to say upgrading the E-2s would cost more than USD$375 million each? U are delusional. U don't know anything about planes, u better not open your mouth. In the first place, you upgrade the electronics, they are the most important and cost many times more than the frame. The frame itself you do a SLEP. And if the RSAF were to upgrade the E-2 ( I personally do not think they need to), they would send it to Israel and not to the US. Grumman is already upgrading USN E-2s to hawkeye 2000 standard. Its not difficult for the RSAF to add their E-2 to this upgrade program, and it will cost a lot less than USD$375 million.

 

[Papsmearer]

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?

As it stands right now, there is nothing wrong with the E-2C that we have, but because technology advances so much, they can get a better electronic package in the same frame.That is why alot of E-2 operators have upgraded their planes to Hawkeye 2000 standards. The specs for this plane is incredible, with 8 bladed props, 12 plus hour endurance, 400 mile surveilance range, track 2000 targets at oen time, etc. This is what the RSAF should have done. It will be a lot cheaper than $375 million each and they get another 15 years of service out of it. easy.

 

[lee6100]

Papsmear

You are very close to solving the Gulfstream mystery. Hoping that you would solve it by now. This might help

1) That particular Gulfstream both in civilian and military is well known for and desirable for what?
2) If it overkill for Singapore to have it which you are right, for who then and for what would it be needed for?

Compared to MINDEF, the SLA case is just a kid stealing a candy from his grandma.

 

[groober2011]

There is nothing wrong with the A-4s. After the upgrades, anyone in the airforce will tell you they can keep flying until 2020. to my knowledge, no A-4s were loss to structural problems in the plane. Loss to pilot error, yes, to training accidents yes, engine failure, yes. But no strutural causes. The plane itself is a simple frame, none of todays composites, and fancy materials. Its easy to maintain, especially after they switched to the derated GE F404 engines, and also much more reliable. I have not heard of a SUper Skyhawk loss to anything yet. Any one who knows wil tell you that planes build for the navy and a marine environment are build stronger and last longer.

The reason they are being retired is not because they are too old, unsafe, fall out of the skies, short wings, or any other reason you have mentioned.

There are a few reasons we need to retire the A4 aircraft other than they are as you say more reliable. Did I say they are falling from the skies due to having shorter wings? Of course aircraft build for the marine environment are build stronger than for those land-based aircraft. Have I said anything to the contrary?

So tell me then apart from those what other reasons could there be for the A4's to fall out of the skies? It may not be obvious to you that older aircraft are less safer than new ones.

So tell me which pilot would want to fly an A4 if they have an F15 or F16. Which is safer?

 

[groober2011]

U mean to say upgrading the E-2s would cost more than USD$375 million each? U are delusional. U don't know anything about planes, u better not open your mouth. In the first place, you upgrade the electronics, they are the most important and cost many times more than the frame. The frame itself you do a SLEP. And if the RSAF were to upgrade the E-2 ( I personally do not think they need to), they would send it to Israel and not to the US. Grumman is already upgrading USN E-2s to hawkeye 2000 standard. Its not difficult for the RSAF to add their E-2 to this upgrade program, and it will cost a lot less than USD$375 million.

Did you take into consideration that we do not have spare E-2C's to replace any send for refurbishment? So what do we do in the meantime when one is taken out for a number of months for that purpose? Since as you say I do not know much about planes and you know much more, how many manhours will it take to refurbish one? You can also correct me by telling us how much it will cost to refurbish an E-2C. Don't just say it is a cheaper option.

Since when did I say that your proposal to refurbish the E-2C's would cost more than $375 million? Your propensity to twist my statements is astounding. You said I mentioned that the Skyhawks are falling from the sky because they have short wings is too stupid to imagine. Any sane person would not make that claim. Perhaps you can elaborate.

 

[groober2011]

As it stands right now, there is nothing wrong with the E-2C that we have, but because technology advances so much, they can get a better electronic package in the same frame.That is why alot of E-2 operators have upgraded their planes to Hawkeye 2000 standards. The specs for this plane is incredible, with 8 bladed props, 12 plus hour endurance, 400 mile surveilance range, track 2000 targets at oen time, etc. This is what the RSAF should have done. It will be a lot cheaper than $375 million each and they get another 15 years of service out of it. easy.

I don't know know whether they will retire the E-2C's permanently or send them for refurbishment once the transition has been completed. Since you know so much perhaps you can tell us. As I have already pointed out, we have only 4 of them and to take one out for refurbishment for an extended period will cause a lot of operational problems.

 

[Kinana]

As it stands right now, there is nothing wrong with the E-2C that we have, but because technology advances so much, they can get a better electronic package in the same frame.That is why alot of E-2 operators have upgraded their planes to Hawkeye 2000 standards. The specs for this plane is incredible, with 8 bladed props, 12 plus hour endurance, 400 mile surveilance range, track 2000 targets at oen time, etc. This is what the RSAF should have done. It will be a lot cheaper than $375 million each and they get another 15 years of service out of it. easy.

The IAI EL/W-2085 system which is more advanced than the Hawkeye system can only be mounted on either the Boeings or the Gulfstream jets.
Gulfstreams are cheaper, smaller and more maneuvarable.

 

[Jlokta]

Funny hor why nobody mention about this aircraft, my favourite the RSAF ever bought I think it look very nice and simple.

Hunter, the hand me down from our former colonial masters.

You can still see them at airforce school and the air force museum.

 

[3_M]

Did you take into consideration that we do not have spare E-2C's to replace any send for refurbishment? So what do we do in the meantime when one is taken out for a number of months for that purpose? Since as you say I do not know much about planes and you know much more, how many manhours will it take to refurbish one? You can also correct me by telling us how much it will cost to refurbish an E-2C. Don't just say it is a cheaper option.

Since when did I say that your proposal to refurbish the E-2C's would cost more than $375 million? Your propensity to twist my statements is astounding. You said I mentioned that the Skyhawks are falling from the sky because they have short wings is too stupid to imagine. Any sane person would not make that claim. Perhaps you can elaborate.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress Oct. 18 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of France for the upgrade of four E-2C Hawkeye Aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $180 million.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/France_11-24.pdf

 

[groober2011]

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress Oct. 18 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of France for the upgrade of four E-2C Hawkeye Aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $180 million.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/France_11-24.pdf

Thanks for the info but this is not the kind of upgrade we are discussing as it involves on a few items, not the latest equipment on the E-2D or the G550.

It has been past 6 months but there has been no further news about it.

 

[steffychun]

Malaysia also fails to have an AWAC. Why do we need four

 

[Debonerman]

Malaysia also fails to have an AWAC. Why do we need four

Never ask a question that confirms your ignorance. LOL