Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Singapore To Announce Purchase Of F-35Bs  
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16065 times:

http://defense.aol.com/2013/03/25/si...to-announce-purchase-of-12-f-35bs/

Quote:
The Singaporeans are extremely shy about declaring their intentions in public, eager to offer few chances for China and Malaysia to react, but two sources familiar with the program confirmed the likely announcement. Given Singapore's tiny size its choice of which of the three F-35 versions to buy is not surprising. A plane that can take off almost vertically and can land vertically is able to operate from a much smaller footprint than, say the F-35A (the Air Force version) or F-16 Block 60s. And, given Singapore's geography, the F-35B makes great sense for its ability to operate closely with the US Marines -- as well as with F-35Cs operating from our aircraft carriers.

The Singaporeans decision will eventually leave China -- and Russia, still something of a Pacific power -- facing 50 to 100 Australian F-35As, 42 F-35As in Japan, 75Bs in Singapore and however many of the three versions built and fielded by the Untied States are regularly in the Pacific. Then consider the F-35, which offers the first true integrated global supply chain for a major weapon system and offers highly classified capabilities which America had previously not made available to allies.

But the underlying reason for the choice of Singapore and the other Pacific countries may be found in the conclusion of these countries about the F-35's effectiveness. One senior official from the region, who has access to the most sensitive classified information about the system, told me recently that the F-35 is "simply undefeatable."


Seems that the people "in the know" are very impressed with this aircraft and its capabilities. Much to the chagrin of the F35's critics who make a living thrashing the thing for every minor detail.....

82 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 15895 times:

No chagrin at all. Any "senior official" will parrot the party line in order to keep career advancement opportunities open. Not being a "team player" in the military can be a career stopper.


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15759 times:

Well now, Singapore is known for it's very meticulous evaluation and selection process for combat aircraft.
That they chose the F-35B is, whatever critics might say, is a major boost for this version, way beyond the numbers involved.
They have no aircraft carriers after all.
RSAF personnel/Singapore political leadership have no personal or institutional stake in this aircraft or this version of the aircraft.
No industrial stake either, that might change a bit with buying the F-35 but that would apply equally with any F-35 version.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7834 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 15730 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
Well now, Singapore is known for it's very meticulous evaluation and selection process for combat aircraft.

Singapore also IMO buys a lot of equipment I can't see any use in like the Endurance class amphibious transport docks, seriously why?


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1857 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 15729 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
Well now, Singapore is known for it's very meticulous evaluation and selection process for combat aircraft.
That they chose the F-35B is, whatever critics might say, is a major boost for this version, way beyond the numbers involved.
They have no aircraft carriers after all.
RSAF personnel/Singapore political leadership have no personal or institutional stake in this aircraft or this version of the aircraft.
No industrial stake either, that might change a bit with buying the F-35 but that would apply equally with any F-35 version.

Much like the Japanese decision to purchase F-35; they determined that F-35 was the best aircraft for what they wanted.

The next major potential sale is South Korea; two major reasons for South Korea to also select F-35: China, as there are some tensions between China and South Korea, and Japan; politically it would be very difficult for a South Korean government to be seen to settle for something less than Japan has. That's if you exclude the North Korean problem.

It is very likely that Singapore will buy additional batches of F-35s in the coming years, eventually building its fleet up to as many as 75.


User currently onlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 15715 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Thread starter):
the F-35B makes great sense for its ability to operate closely with the US Marines -- as well as with F-35Cs operating from our aircraft carriers.

And the Australian carriers .... oops, they are not carriers are they???



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 15696 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
Singapore also IMO buys a lot of equipment I can't see any use in like the Endurance class amphibious transport docks, seriously why?

They are a perfect platform for humanitarian assistance or as a C2 node for asymmetric operations such as anti-piracy. Both of which Singapore has a vested interest in and practice at. Just like Australia's new LHDs which will probably never push troops onto a beach but will deploy to every natural disaster the SE Asian region experiences.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 15615 times:

Korea, Japan, Singapore . . .

They all have at least two things in common . . . China and wealth.

Since these countries are not concerned about cost . . . they would gain prestige if they have anything that is deemed superior to their adversaries . . . much less their friendlier rivals   

They probably would buy the F-22 if the US would allow them to have them.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
I can't see any use in like the Endurance class amphibious transport docks, seriously why?

To get their forces to the mainland or back from the main land if the bridges are destroyed?
Never put all your eggs in one basket . . . they probably have a fleet of smaller transport to do the same.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 6):
operations such as anti-piracy

For anti-piracy, a larger fleet of smaller ships would cover more sea . . . but one large one could act as a "mother ship" 

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently onlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 651 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 15551 times:

What can I say but WOW! at this stage.
Seen the full scale mockup some years ago at the Singapore Air Show and my first impression of the bird is pretty big and awesome.
Glad to be able to see it regularly overflying the skies here soon. 



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 15528 times:

One senior official from the region, who has access to the most sensitive classified information about the system, told me recently that the F-35 is "simply undefeatable." And this official said the aircraft is expected to maintain its dominance for at least one quarter of a century.

Such over the top statements remind me of the accuracy regarding the classified information of WMDs in Iraq.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 15482 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
Singapore also IMO buys a lot of equipment I can't see any use in like the Endurance class amphibious transport docks, seriously why?

Aside from anti piracy, there are the disputes around islands in the region, that possibly to deter Chinese maritime aggression, like minded nations could deploy task groups, Singapore with it's concerns about sea lines of communication will want to be a contributor here.
Also, they are doing now what it seems Qatar is seeking to replicate in the Mid East, a small but very rich nation with nearby potentially hostile and large nations, they both want leverage, influence.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 9):
Such over the top statements remind me of the accuracy regarding the classified information of WMDs in Iraq.

Well, one statement is by concerned nations in the region of the Pacific, the WMD thing was by an ideologically obsessed but serially incompetent US administration.
Like it or not, F-35 is getting there, will be a step change in capability and in the Asia-Pacific region, will be an asset that for instance China, for all the flashy looking prototypes, is a long way from replicating. Whose air defence systems will also for a long time to come find the F-35 a very difficult threat to counter.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 15474 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 1):
No chagrin at all. Any "senior official" will parrot the party line in order to keep career advancement opportunities open. Not being a "team player" in the military can be a career stopper.

Who said anything about him being military?

Of course Canadian journalists avoided this announcement, due to the "good news for the JSF program" angle they must avoid.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 15469 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 10):
the WMD thing was by an ideologically obsessed but serially incompetent US administration.

Not to hijack this thread, but the Brits also believed WMDs in Iraq, hook line and sinker and acted accordingly. Just because a group of nations concur, does not make a fact true or not.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7834 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 15454 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):

To get their forces to the mainland or back from the main land if the bridges are destroyed?

There are much cheaper and more efficient ways of doing this than a landing platform dock.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):

Not to hijack this thread, but the Brits also believed WMDs in Iraq, hook line and sinker and acted accordingly.

You should rephrase that to Tony Blair, Tony want to go play in the sand with George real bad.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 15451 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
Not to hijack this thread, but the Brits also believed WMDs in Iraq, hook line and sinker and acted accordingly. Just because a group of nations concur, does not make a fact true or not.

A fair point, though the intel from MI6 with all the caveats and warnings about incomplete information, potentially untrustworthy sources, got deleted in government statements.
His chief spin doctor effectively was drafting statements about intelligence information.
Tony Blair paid a high political price for this, the most successful election winner in recent history ended being dumped by his own party.
There was huge doubt here at the time, in Feb 2003 the largest demonstration in modern times took place, the numbers way beyond anything the usual suspects on the left and the remnants of CND etc, could ever call on.

Blair wanted Saddam gone, he wanted him gone in 1998 but had to settle for a brief intensification of the air strikes.
He wanted him gone so much that in early 2002 he pledged to back Bush come what may, did not tell Parliament or the British people this, so much so that he could not allow the armed forces to prepare properly for the war in late 2002/early 2003.
Since this would give the lie to his stance of negotiation and UN approval.

I do not see parallels with all this with the desire by some Pacific Rim air forces wanting to acquire a state of the art strike fighter.
As I said, Singapore has a reputation for very in depth evaluations, more to the point, for a big ticket item like a new combat aircraft, they want something that is beyond prototype stage, seems secure in it's production and entry into service.
They can never win, against any likely opponent, on numbers, quality is king.

The selection by Singapore of F-35B, in particular the version often seen as the most technically risky - and expensive - is a highly significant event.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 15428 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 11):
Who said anything about him being military?

Most likely, as well as some posters in this thread.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 11):
Of course Canadian journalists avoided this announcement, due to the "good news for the JSF program" angle they must avoid.

Your sense of humour shines through again.

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):
The selection by Singapore
of F-35B, in particular the version often seen as the most technically risky - and expensive - is a highly significant event.

Still evaluating, GDB. They may well select it. Or buy more F-15SGs.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 15358 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):
The selection by Singapore of F-35B, in particular the version often seen as the most technically risky - and expensive - is a highly significant event.

I don't see anywhere else that Singapore will order anything. This one guy at AOL must have a scoop. We'll know in a few days how true this is.

But I hope they buy a lot of them, for 2 reasons:

1. Money for my country
2. It makes no difference what Singapore has, as they have no military enemies anyway, nor will they do anything militarily with them.

Proof is that they have not participated in any live fire coalition air force actions over the years with their fighters - none. Despite training alongside coalition forces on a regular basis and having modern compatible equipment.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1857 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 15339 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 16):
Proof is that they have not participated in any live fire coalition air force actions over the years with their fighters - none. Despite training alongside coalition forces on a regular basis and having modern compatible equipment.

Part of it is because they never offered to join in any coalition air force actions in the first place.

The RSAF has participated and conducted live fire exercises with the US military for years. Also, the SAF has participated extensively in large mulch-lateral military exercises, such as RIMPAC yearly.

Your attitude is akin to saying the as the Japanese and the Koreans have not participated in any live fire coalition air force actions over the years with their fighters, they have no military enemies anyway, nor will they do anything militarily with them. Despite training alongside coalition forces on a regular basis and having modern compatible equipment.

Part of having a military is deterrence; you want to be able to back up, with force the ability to strike at a enemy if they don't have friendly relations with you to make sure they don't attack you or your interests in the first place. The same can be said about nuclear weapons; we may never use them, but they are there to prevent someone else from attacking with nuclear weapons.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 15319 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 16):
1. Money for my country
2. It makes no difference what Singapore has, as they have no military enemies anyway, nor will they do anything militarily with them.

Proof is that they have not participated in any live fire coalition air force actions over the years with their fighters - none. Despite training alongside coalition forces on a regular basis and having modern compatible equipment.

Yes, them that did not have the wisdom to take part in that brilliantly planned and superbly executed operation 'Iraqi Freedom'
Patronising enough?
As stated, they are a serious air force, air forces that are not serious and are more like willy waving exercises for their leaders, don't take part in high level exercises on a very regular basis, including I believe, 'Red Flag.'

Your own government has signalled, is starting to implement, a strategic shift to the increasing important - and fraught - Asia/Pacific region.
There is potential for conflict there not just with North Korea, if the US is increasingly concerned about Chinese maritime naval expansion and assertiveness, how do you think Singapore feels about this?
The passage of maritime traffic, trade, is their very lifeblood.

I've done a bit of checking, this potential deal for F-35B's is being reported by a range of respected sources and has been in the works for some time.
This announcement, while not putting ink to paper yet, looks like a serious step to realise this deal.

I would guess that this serious evaluation by Singapore, is based and far more information, that is also far more recent, than is available to those not involved in this process and just have a downer on the aircraft concerned.


User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 726 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 15309 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Singapore's newly appointed Chief of Defence Force is from the air force this time round - and a fighter pilot no less. Might make the buy a bit easier... It would also be very good timing for the announcement!


Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 15263 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
Part of it is because they never offered to join in any coalition air force actions in the first place.

Why?

Quoting GDB (Reply 18):
Yes, them that did not have the wisdom to take part in that brilliantly planned and superbly executed operation 'Iraqi Freedom'
Patronising enough?

See Afghanistan, Iraqi no fly zone and a few other coalition air operations.

Quoting GDB (Reply 18):
There is potential for conflict there not just with North Korea,......

There is potential for anything. Is it probable that China will invade Singapore? Not even close. Besides, nothing short of the release of nuclear weapons would stop China from taking Singapore if China wanted to. But why would China do such a thing in the 1st place? Total nonsense. China is not going to sabotage it's entire economy over a rock that doesn't even have enough water.

And since Singapore is not involved anywhere in any coalition with its fighters at any time, why would they suddenly be involved in Korea?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
The RSAF has participated and conducted live fire exercises with the US military for years. Also, the SAF has participated extensively in large mulch-lateral military exercises, such as RIMPAC yearly.

So why haven't their fighters ever participated in any coalition air operation - anywhere at any time? Something tells me they're not up to the required training standards. They can't even control the pirates operating in their surrounding waters. And it's not because of a lack of hardware. That's pretty indicative to me.

But I have nothing against them buying as many F-35Bs as possible. It would be a good thing, for the reasons I already stated. However, if we don't hear of any order by the 1st week of April, we'll know the article was false. We'll soon find out.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1857 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 15252 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
Why?

They aren't interested in participating in military expeditions that does not immediately affect their interests. Their foreign policy is very pragmatic. They have zero interests in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
So why haven't their fighters ever participated in any coalition air operation - anywhere at any time? Something tells me they're not up to the required training standards. They can't even control the pirates operating in their surrounding waters. And it's not because of a lack of hardware. That's pretty indicative to me.

See above. They aren't interested in participating in military expeditions that does not immediately affect their interests.

If a air war brewed up in the Southeast Asia region, they would be interested. But elsewhere? Nope.

And the same standards and logic can be applied to the Japanese, Taiwanese and the Koreans, which have never deployed fighters overseas in combat. No one can doubt the professionalism and the quality of the pilots of all three forces. In fact, Taiwanese pilots, flying with USAF AETC 21 Fighter Squadron at Luke AFB, and the Singaporeans with the 425 Fighter Squadron do extremely well against USAF and USN fighter squadrons, and are renown for their aggressiveness and skill in the air.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 15233 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
See Afghanistan, Iraqi no fly zone and a few other coalition air operations.

Neither has any other non NATO nations.
Australia and New Zealand have provided some ground troops, they have however a different and much longer established strategic relationship with the US however. Their contribution is based on special forces, the Australian and NZ SAS regiments have a very close relationship with the British one, which is sort of the parent company, which in turn has a very close relationship with US special forces.
Put it this way, had Blair not committed large scale UK forces to Iraq, it is likely that the SAS would still have been (secretly) deployed, in the manner that their 'Task Force Black' was in actuality.
The UK did not send forces to Vietnam. Apart from some SAS who were on exchange with the Aussie and NZ regiments.
The UK government does not comment on special forces deployments.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
There is potential for anything. Is it probable that China will invade Singapore? Not even close. Besides, nothing short of the release of nuclear weapons would stop China from taking Singapore if China wanted to. But why would China do such a thing in the 1st place? Total nonsense. China is not going to sabotage it's entire economy over a rock that doesn't even have enough water.

And since Singapore is not involved anywhere in any coalition with its fighters at any time, why would they suddenly be involved in Korea?

You might not think that, but within living memory Singapore was invaded by a hostile Asian power in WW2. And it was not even independent then.
Then as now, it's very important strategically.
I don't see the threat of invasion as likely either, however they are very aware of the need for stability in the region, they are therefore contributors to military forces in the region that include Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand to name obvious ones.

Singapore punches way above it's size economically, how do you think they maintain, for such a small place, an airline with the size, route network and influence as Singapore Airlines, for example?

Turn your logic around, the US has not been under threat of any kind of invasion for 200 years, was not going to be as much as bombed in two world wars, yet spends more on defence, even today over two decades after the Cold War ended, than the next dozen or so nations combined.


User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 726 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 15188 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
So why haven't their fighters ever participated in any coalition air operation - anywhere at any time?

Because there is no need. Why upset the neighbouring populations?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
And since Singapore is not involved anywhere in any coalition with its fighters at any time, why would they suddenly be involved in Korea?

No need to be involved, but a conflict on the Korean peninsula would be a LOT closer to home than in Iraq/Afghanistan etc.



Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 15178 times:

Turms out that Singapore HAS contributed in Afghanistan;

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1F51AA0E09843BD8

And in sea lane protection in the Gulf Of Aden;

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11834760C9BD2916


25 neutrino : Well, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will be meeting up with President Obama at the White House on April 2. Will the deal be announced/signed then? F
26 Mortyman : Did I understand this correct. Singapore is considering orderingn 75 Aircraft ? What are they gonna do With that many ? Don't they have F15's too ?[Ed
27 neutrino : Yes, 24 now and probably up to 60 eventually...and many F-5s, plus shedloads of F-16s. But by then, some of the older birds would have been retired.
28 kanban : Is it a urban myth or fact that they have to base a substantial part of the aircraft in Australia do to lack of space?
29 tommytoyz : Yes Singapore and their air force were involved in many ways and they were there and did operate with the coalition forces. But not with their fighte
30 GDB : A large, multinational force, which includes the USN, don't seem to have eradicated piracy in the Gulf Of Aden, either. Piracy in the Asian Pacific,
31 kanban : Seems Indonesia builds or built some Boeing Jetfoil based patrol craft.. might help Singapore to buy a couple edit... oops they didn't do very well t
32 Ozair : Stunning logic mate. By that same premise we can discount the air forces of China, Russia and India because they have never flown in Coalitions eithe
33 tommytoyz : The topic is Singapore. The Indian Ocean and the Gulf Of Aden are much larger than the very narrow and confined straight of Malacca and do not border
34 tommytoyz : If you think it is a valid analogy, more power to you. Once again a deflection away from discussing Singapore. Why don't you answer the questions abo
35 GDB : Just exposing the flaws in your arguments, with comparable examples - Sweden is a good one given their move from long semi isolation to taking part o
36 tommytoyz : No, that's not what I said. The joke, and I was clear on this, is because they are not able to deal with the pirates off their coast with their gigan
37 ThePointblank : Yes, that's exactly what you said. You equated: lack of coalition air operation = lack of training standards. This is exactly what you have said: You
38 9VSIO : Because Singapore cannot drop bombs in the waters of other nations. Plus, kinda wasteful to expand a JDAM on a skiff... Pirates are generally wanted
39 tommytoyz : First of all this is not a discussion directed at you nor that I am having with you. Why then, do you interject in a negative manner and incorrectly
40 tommytoyz : Could it be Singapore wants the B version, precisely because of space issues on their Island? It may allow them to keep more fighters on the island, b
41 ThePointblank : You are on record here in this thread saying this: That's the crux of the argument here. You made a statement stating that the SAF was not up to the
42 tommytoyz : What you described is exactly what I said for once. Now you're getting it. Which is the opposite of which is not what I said. I am sorry you fail to
43 Mortyman : The Swedes only did airsurvailance did'nt they ? They did'nt bomb anything ... Compared to Denmark and Norway they don't really use their Equipment t
44 Post contains links infinit : Singapore was one of the founding members of the now 10-member ASEAN regional grouping. I believe part of the reason for its formation was the threat
45 SAS A340 : To drop bombs was the only thing that counts for Norway in Libya,remember that i could read in Norwegian newspapers how you (as a nation) applauding
46 KiwiRob : No they didn't, Norway bought 72 built by Fokker and 2 attrition frames built by General Dynamics. You're getting confused with the F-5 which Norway
47 Mortyman : It's not about applauding . But it is a fact that Norway bombed alot in Libya compared to many other nations and that we took upon ourselves missions
48 neutrino : True, lack of airspace lead us to base most of our training overseas with chiefly Australia, France and the USA. The Philippines' (US) Clark Air Base
49 Post contains images neutrino : Singapore is completely surrounded by vastly more populous entities that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered as buddies. Even the
50 tommytoyz : How does this play into the fact that Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia are all a part of ASEAN and the U.N. and all have a huge amount of trade betw
51 bikerthai : Well, right now, one thing that would stop China from taking Singapore is the lack of sufficient naval logistic to sustain a campaing. Ask, again whe
52 tommytoyz : I don't think the White House nor the US DoD sees China as a threat against US soil any time soon. Besides ICBMs, China doesn't have the hardware. Mo
53 Post contains links ThePointblank : FYI, Singapore has been studying the F-35B in detail ever since they signed on as an Security Co-operation Participant in the JSF programme. As a Secu
54 Post contains images sweair : If the F22 was possible to buy, would it have sold more than the F35? The price is now the same
55 GDB : Japan was interested in getting some, however the US government wouldn't export to them.
56 sweair : I said IF the F22 was for sale, would it sell better than the F35? As it should be available and more matured by now and the price tag would be about
57 ThePointblank : Not likely. The main problem being that the F-22 was and is for the most part, a unitasker. In the end, you want aircraft that can do multiple roles
58 bikerthai : . . . and the US has gone to the last few military conflict because the enemy was a threat to US interest and not neccessarily US soil. bt
59 GDB : I doubt if an aircraft of that complexity would mature too quickly, remember they had a grounding that lasted much longer than most military aircraft
60 KiwiRob : The real question is why would the Chinese have a go at Singapore, they have no claim on Singapore historically.
61 neutrino : Because of the majority "Descendants of the Dragon" population? Nah, that's almost akin to them staking a claim on the Moon since the mythological Ch
62 infinit : No way.. That's almost akin to China staking a claim on New Zealand. Just look at how far apart Singapore and China are. Why would China stake such a
63 Post contains images bikerthai : I was talking from a militray logistic stand point. I agree with you from the geo-political and cultural stand point. or akin to Austrailia taking ov
64 neutrino : Singapore is also very close to the US in many areas. Eg., economic, military and financial relations have been strong for many decades. This little
65 KiwiRob : nah bro we've been silently taking over Australia for a long while.
66 ThePointblank : Very safe. Singapore in the past was a staunch anti-Communist ally in the region. Since independence, they have recognized the ROC over the PRC up un
67 bikerthai : Good information. bt
68 tommytoyz : I assume there is no order materializing as the journalist claimed there would be by now. Bad journalism.
69 Post contains links ThePointblank : Bogdan says Singapore's order will probably come in the summer: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews Also not
70 Post contains links ThePointblank : Update on the Singaporean situation: http://www.airforcemag.com/DWG/Docum...013/July%202013/072913Carlisle.pdf See page 13 regarding comments made by
71 Post contains images neutrino : Don't we always? Granted that at times our "radar" might be faulty but the "design range" is always beyond the horizon.
72 angmoh : If an official order will come, it will be relatively short term for a combat ready aircraft. The F-35B is not combat ready so an official order will
73 ThePointblank : I also believe that the issue of Singapore buying F-35 is not a matter of 'if', but a matter of 'when'. As Singapore is a Security Cooperative Partic
74 connies4ever : The thinking behind this would be similar to the widely-assumed purchase of the F-35 by the ROKAF ? Which we now know will not happen. https://www.de
75 ThePointblank : The thing is that we have a quote from the USAF Pacific commander that he spoke directly with Singapore's Chief of Defence a few weeks ago, who confi
76 tommytoyz : If you don't have the payment part sorted, you have nothing. F-35s must be paid for. So a decision to buy without a decision to pay for them, is no d
77 9VSIO : That may be so, but it's pretty much known who the successors are. It's not like there's a large pool of candidates to pick from (3 each time)!
78 Post contains links ThePointblank : A date has been tipped as a potential date when Singapore formally announces a F-35 purchase: Feb 2014 during Singapore Air Show: http://uk.finance.ya
79 Post contains links tommytoyz : Next time he says makes a prediction, let's keep his track record in mind. Something like this would not happen on a regular basis in waters of many
80 ThePointblank : As mentioned before, the problem relates more to Singapore's neighbour, Indonesia and Malaysia, not Singapore. Singapore can't enter Malaysian or Ind
81 Post contains links ThePointblank : News: A Singaporean delegation has arrived at Luke AFB to view the F-35B closer up: http://www.ktar.com/?nid=22&sid=1683964 http://www.kpho.com/st
82 Post contains links ThePointblank : The Singaporean Defence Minister makes his comments on the timing of the F-35B purchase after viewing the F-35 at a demonstration at Luke AFB: No grea
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Singapore To Announce Purchase Of F-35Bs
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Singapore To Purchase 12 More F-15s posted Mon Oct 22 2007 14:14:03 by Lumberton
Northrop May To Drop Out Of Tanker Competition posted Tue Dec 1 2009 14:45:21 by Seefivein
Senate Votes To Halt Production Of F22 posted Tue Jul 21 2009 11:34:40 by Stealth777
Rdaf Should Postpone The Purchase Of A New Fighter posted Thu May 22 2008 02:36:19 by Larshjort
Alabama Voters To Decide Fate Of Spacecamp posted Sun Apr 27 2008 16:30:24 by Nosedive
Colombia Mulls Purchase Of 24 Used Kfirs-Report posted Mon Feb 11 2008 02:51:21 by Lumberton
Canada To Get A Fleet Of UAVs posted Sun Oct 28 2007 12:26:17 by FighterPilot
Purchase Of Equipment posted Sat Jun 30 2007 18:09:26 by Olle
Turkey Suspends Purchase Of 30 F-16s posted Sat Mar 24 2007 22:34:24 by TK787
"Orion" Said To Be Name Of NASA's CEV Program posted Fri Jul 21 2006 10:42:36 by AerospaceFan

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format