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, 569 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 15562 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 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 15392 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, 13191 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15256 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, 7288 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 15227 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, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15226 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 offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5693 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15212 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, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15193 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, 2106 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15112 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 offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days ago) and read 15048 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: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15025 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, 13191 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14979 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, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14971 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: 6
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14966 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, 7288 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14951 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, 13191 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14948 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 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14925 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: 6
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14855 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, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14836 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, 13191 posts, RR: 77
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14816 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, 714 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 14806 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: 6
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14760 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, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14749 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, 13191 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14730 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, 714 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14685 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, 13191 posts, RR: 77
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14675 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


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14775 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 15):
Still evaluating, GDB. They may well select it. Or buy more F-15SGs.

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? Fits in with the March 25 AOL article of "sometime in the next 10 days".
We will see soon either way.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3881 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 14732 times:

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 ?

[Edited 2013-03-28 08:00:51]

User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days ago) and read 14856 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 26):

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 ?

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.

We once had over 80 Skyhawks in service, with as many as 78 of them airborne together a few times; during rehearsals and an actual National Day Parade back in the late '70s. In addition, there were a couple of squadrons of Hawker Hunters and some Strikemasters. And that was almost forty years ago.

The only practical way for this Little Red Dot to have a respectably credible fighting force is in investing heavily in its air arm as there is no way the army and navy can ever match up to those of its very much more populous and sometimes overbearing neighbours.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3502 posts, RR: 27
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 14821 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14802 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 26):
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 ?

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 fighters - never - which is what I carefully and specifically mentioned.

I have grown tired of pointing out all the fallacies pushed forward here about their abilities and their need for all that hardware. In reality, the real world fact that the Singaporeans can't even handle the pirates operating in their surrounding waters going on for decades now, tells you all you need to know about their effectiveness, despite having 100 modern fighters (F-16 and F-15) and a modern Navy including subs. That to me is a joke of a military if it can't even do that. No wonder their fighters went no nowhere near the coalition air forces during real conflicts.

[Edited 2013-03-28 10:59:37]

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13191 posts, RR: 77
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14764 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 29):
That to me is a joke of a military if it can't even do that. No wonder their fighters went no nowhere near the coalition air forces during real conflicts.

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, it's eradication, is not only the responsibility of Singapore, count in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, in terms of coastlines.

So the 'joke' list now gets longer then? Or do the others not count for not (yet) having the temerity of showing interest in the F-35, unlike those horrid Singaporeans.

Singapore it emerges, has been keeping an eye on the F-35 as far back as 2001, when it was still the X-35.
For them to move towards a potential buy, would be in keeping with their policy for military aircraft, with the type now having entered initial service and low rate production, presumably they are feeling more confident about this aircraft.

The Swedes had no actual combat experience since a limited UN action in Africa in the early 60's, yet they performed well enough with their deployment in the Libyan campaign in 2011.
Not bad for a 50 year gap, several generations of aircraft later.
After some years honing their skills after joining in exercises like Red Flag, after being essentially isolated by their neutrality prior to that.
Presumably they are a 'joke' too?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3502 posts, RR: 27
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14726 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 29):
Singaporeans can't even handle the pirates operating in their surrounding waters going on for decades now

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 two completed, two incomplete, one hulk, and one canceled

[Edited 2013-03-28 13:12:59]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14712 times:

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.

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 either?

The RSAF is very well trained, almost all their fast jet pilots train in the US with US aircrew and half their fighter fleet are based there. They also regularly participate in Red Flag, the most realistic air training exercise you can get. A flag is far more value than flying in something like Libya where there was no air threat and almost no ground threat.

Quoting kanban (Reply 28):
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?

They have pilot training for initial fixed wing and helicopters in Australia and regularly exercise there.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 26):
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 ?

They will probably rationalize their F-5 and F-16 fleets (according to Wiki about 123 aircraft) into the F-35 and depending upon what is in production replace the F-15s in 2030 or so with more F-35.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 29):
I have grown tired of pointing out all the fallacies pushed forward here about their abilities and their need for all that hardware.

Sometimes one opposing opinion against an overwhelming majority can be a good thing. This is not one of those times.......


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14702 times:

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 with the USA or any other large, industrial country, like the Straight. The Philippines, even though vastly larger than Singapore, has no 100 fighters or a large Navy, so what's your point? And I never said Sweden was ever sub par. I don't know why you worked that in.Is it really SOP to defend Singapore by talking about anything else but Singapore and their military accomplishments?

And yes, Piracy along the Somali coast has been severely curtailed, very soon after the Navy patrols by allied ships started. And this by nations 1000s of miles away from home, with only a handful of ships. Why can't the Singaporeans accomplish the same results in a much smaller area of water, located practically right front of them with much more military hardware, 100 modern fighters, Navy ships, subs, etc...? Why? Are the pirates that good or that much better than the Somali ones?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14692 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 32):
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 either?

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 about Singapore instead?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 32):
They also regularly participate in Red Flag, the most realistic air training exercise you can get. A flag is far more value than flying in something like Libya where there was no air threat and almost no ground threat.

Ah yes, you must mean the pirates in the Straight of Malacca with SAMS and torpedoes? BTW, many countries participate in Red Flag. Some do better than others.

If 1/2 of Singapore fighters are indeed based in the USA, what good are they to Singapore 10,000 miles away? I assume the F-35 would as well? Anyone know the answer to that?

I want to be clear. I am not against Singapore doing all of this. It makes no difference to any coalition force or even to the pirates in their own back yard. For me, it's beneficial in the end. But I just honestly ask Singaporeans, buddy, do you know what you're doing?

Besides, no announcement has been made yet on the F-35. We'll know in a few days.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13191 posts, RR: 77
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14671 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 33):
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 with the USA or any other large, industrial country, like the Straight. The Philippines, even though vastly larger than Singapore, has no 100 fighters or a large Navy, so what's your point? And I never said Sweden was ever sub par. I don't know why you worked that in.Is it really SOP to defend Singapore by talking about anything else but Singapore and their military accomplishments?

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 on a coalition action, a point you raised as being the sign of any AF that is not a 'joke'.
To say nothing of your causal contempt for other nations.
Including a US ally, who we've determined HAS contributed to Afghanistan.

Sneer if you like, if you knew much about that operation you'd know that ISAF have had sufficient fast jet assets in theatre for years, they have not asked for more. They have turned down contributions for more of the same.
So Singapore brought some UAV's to the party. Which in turn gets them some experience in large scale coalition operations which you had deemed to be the sign of a serious military and not a 'joke'.

You try and cite a perceived lack of rigour in anti piracy, yet Singapore actually has been assisting in other anti piracy ops along with NATO and other nations.
The piracy issue in the Straits Of Malacca is also far less than it was some years ago too, so you might even argue that Singapore brought some real world experience to the Horn Of Africa operation.

And why? Because it seems like Singapore might be looking to buy an aircraft that you deem to be no good.
For a small nation, in both physical size and population, Singapore seems to be contributing well above it's weight.
They really cannot win with you it seems!

Excuse me if I take the evaluations of a well regarded air force, with a history of looking and choosing carefully their equipment, over someone on this forum who seems to get very vexed on the subject of this aircraft, do you have some great insight that the RSAF lack?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 14659 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 35):
Sweden is a good one given their move from long semi isolation to taking part on a coalition action, a point you raised as being the sign of any AF that is not a 'joke'.

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 gigantic military. Not because they don't operate in coalition air forces. Sweden wouldn't stand for piracy off its coast for 1 second and would be effective against such a thing. If you want to compare Sweden to Singapore, you only highlight how ineffective Singapore actually is.

Please don't misrepresent what I posted, thanks.

Like I have said many times, as far as I am concerned, Singapore is welcome to the F-35.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14652 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 36):

No, that's not what I said.

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:

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.

Your logic is extremely flawed here. I suggest you visit Luke AFB and visit the Singaporean contingent there and tell them to their face that they are not to snuff.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 36):
Sweden wouldn't stand for piracy off its coast for 1 second and would be effective against such a thing.

Sweden doesn't have a number of 3rd world nations surrounding it.

Singapore can only control what around their waters; which is extremely small. Singapore only has 3nm of territorial sea, of which they control extremely effectively. They are only as good as their neighbours, and Malaysia and Indonesia haven't been the best partners in stamping out the piracy threat, especially Indonesia, as the bulk of the pirates operating in the region are from Indonesia.

So if you want someone to blame regarding the piracy in the Strait, blame Indonesia. Indonesia is the least well equipped in the region to handle the issue, and the stats from the IMB shows; looking at Live Piracy & Armed Robbery Report 2013 shows ALL of the attacks that are reported in the region are in Indonesian waters, not Singaporean. And the most galling thing of all is that Singapore has repeatedly asked its neighbours to accept international help only to be rebuffed multiple times.


User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 714 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 33):
Why can't the Singaporeans accomplish the same results in a much smaller area of water, located practically right front of them with much more military hardware, 100 modern fighters, Navy ships, subs, etc...? Why?

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 alive so that they can stand trial. One can't put an assortment of body parts on trial.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 37):
And the most galling thing of all is that Singapore has repeatedly asked its neighbours to accept international help only to be rebuffed multiple times.

Pride (face) is always a key factor in Asia.

I think it would be foolish to think that the F-35 is going to be used for hunting pirates. That's what the additional S-70s are for!



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: 6
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14590 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 37):
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:

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 at that? You are seeking to illicit a negative response. That's the definition of a troll, troll.

There are two things wrong with your conclussions:
I never equated the SAF Fighters were not properly trained because they were not in any live air operations. That's nuts. Not only did I not say that, but the SAF would have to be trained first, before they go into a live coalition air operation. I did allude to the opposite of your equation, namely that because they were not effective, maybe that's why they weren't there - which is the opposite of what you claim I said.

Secondly the "joke part"
I did not say the SAF fighter force was a joke, because of their failure to operate in a live coalition air operation. I said they were a joke because they couldn't effectively deal with the pirates.

Now you say Singapore only has 3 miles of territorial waters. You fail to say that's only between the Malaysia/Singapore border.

I suggest we get back n topic about Singapore ordering - or not - the F-35. I hope they order 100 just to start. They can figure out where to put them later. Since they probably won't all fit in Singapore.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14572 times:

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, because the B version can land vertically and could use less runway space than F-16s.

To me, this would be the only reason why they would want to get the most expensive and lowest performing version.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14570 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 39):
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 at that? You are seeking to illicit a negative response. That's the definition of a troll, troll.

You are on record here in this thread saying this:

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.

That's the crux of the argument here. You made a statement stating that the SAF was not up to the required training standards which is demonstrated because their fighters never participated in any coalition air operation and they can't control the piracy in its waters. Now it is up to you to defend the statement. Or do you retract the statement altogether? Your call.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 39):
I never equated the SAF Fighters were not properly trained because they were not in any live air operations. That's nuts. Not only did I not say that, but the SAF would have to be trained first, before they go into a live coalition air operation.

Yes you did; see the below quote:

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.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 39):
I said they were a joke because they couldn't effectively deal with the pirates.

When the problem clearly according to the International Maritime Bureau is not Singapore (far from it), its its neighbour, Indonesia. Singapore can't control what Indonesia can or cannot do. The problem of regional piracy is not solely a Singaporean problem, it's primarily an Indonesian problem.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 39):

Now you say Singapore only has 3 miles of territorial waters. You fail to say that's only between the Malaysia/Singapore border.

Gee, partially because Singapore is almost surrounded in 3 directions by Malaysia, and to the immediate south is Indonesia?

FYI, the 3 miles of territorial water has been claimed since 1878, ever since the British passed the Territorial Waters Act 1878, 41 & 42 Vict. C. 73. That's the extent of Singapore's territorial sea according to the law and international treaties. Singapore can furthermore claim a 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit, but Singapore has never put forth such a claim yet.

You have made many bold statements regarding a number of key US allies in this thread and in others. It's either you back up your statements, or retract them.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 14569 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 41):
Now it is up to you to defend the statement. Or do you retract the statement altogether? Your call.

What you described is exactly what I said for once. Now you're getting it. Which is the opposite of

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 37):
lack of coalition air operation = lack of training standards.

which is not what I said. I am sorry you fail to grasp that I never said fighting and training are somehow equal. They are different and one can effect the other, but they are not equal nor happen simultaneously. You train and then you fight. Perhaps you just expressed yourself poorly with that equation.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 41):
You have made many bold statements regarding a number of key US allies in this thread and in others. It's either you back up your statements, or retract them.

Do you mean the Coalition air forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were a figment of my imagination? I think you are capable of looking up and confirming for yourself, that they are and were, indeed real.

Now I do suggest you stop trolling for a negative argument that has nothing to do with the OP topic and something you elbowed your way into not involving you, just to argue it seems.

[Edited 2013-03-28 22:29:39]

[Edited 2013-03-28 22:37:58]

User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3881 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14554 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 30):
The Swedes had no actual combat experience since a limited UN action in Africa in the early 60's, yet they performed well enough with their deployment in the Libyan campaign in 2011

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 to it's full potential.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 27):
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.

We once had over 80 Skyhawks in service, with as many as 78 of them airborne together a few times; during rehearsals and an actual National Day Parade back in the late '70s. In addition, there were a couple of squadrons of Hawker Hunters and some Strikemasters. And that was almost forty years ago.

The only practical way for this Little Red Dot to have a respectably credible fighting force is in investing heavily in its air arm as there is no way the army and navy can ever match up to those of its very much more populous and sometimes overbearing neighbours.

I'm just amazed that a country With around the same population as Norway, has so many fighters compared to Norway. Norway is, if everything is going as planned gonna order 52 F35A's and we are not gonna keep Our old F16's ... The 52 F35A's is gonna be it. Norway has Russia NeXT door and an Ocean area 7 times larger than the landmass of Norway to look after and police in adittion to international operations. I Guess I am not fully upp to date on what Singapore is struggling With.. When that is said, Norway is a member of NATO, so I Guess we have decided to rely more on outside help incase anything major happen, than Singapore...

Norway once had over 100 F16's. But that was during the Cold war ...


User currently offlineinfinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14542 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 18):
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.

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 of the then sleeping giant-China which has been described as the fire in ASEAN's backyard but analysts.

Half of the ASEAN members- Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei have island claim disputes with China now although the first two have been pushing it more. Vietnam especially pushed for it to be a China vs ASEAN dispute rather than China vs Vietnam. Of course China quickly dismissed that and insisted on dealing with the various claimants individually (if they actually do). China is also providing aid to Cambodia and Cambodia attempted to dismiss the dispute when it chaired the forum last year, the first time in its 45year history that the grouping failed to issue a joint communique- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18825148. China must have been pleased.

Indonesia took the lead after the disastrous session last year, meeting with the various ASEAN nations' foreign ministers. Singapore on the other hand held a joint naval exercise in the South China sea with the US. Singapore never takes a hardliner stance on anything at all, our government always wants to keep the doors open to all. But to maintain a balance in the region they see American military presence as a necessary force, so yes they decided to make a very subtle soft statement hiding behind the might of the US Navy.

ASEAN as a whole is definitely more important to Singapore than China, our largest trading partner is Malaysia with Indonesia in second place and China is clearly to far. I don't think Singapore will ever take a stance against China though, or any other nation for the matter. Singapore will moot for talks- ASEAN regionalisation which has gone from bull 20 years ago to a credible voice now.. as well as US military involvement in the region as a stablising force.


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14533 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 43):
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 to it's full potential

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 yourself as being the country that by population,numbers of fighters and god knows what, was the country that drop most bombs,that you were better than all the rest...the world should salute you.
It could also be of some importunes to have someone to actually See and tell you what to bomb ore not....and Sweden was there as a NON NATO member.



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7288 posts, RR: 5
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14499 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 43):
Norway once had over 100 F16's. But that was during the Cold war ...

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 bought 108 in several batches.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 43):
The 52 F35A's is gonna be it.

I bet the final number won't even be close to 52.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3881 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 14487 times:

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 45):
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 yourself as being the country that by population,numbers of fighters and god knows what, was the country that drop most bombs,that you were better than all the rest...the world should salute you.
It could also be of some importunes to have someone to actually See and tell you what to bomb ore not....and Sweden was there as a NON NATO member.

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 that other countries considered to be too politically sensitive and would'nt touch. 75% of the missions performed by the Royal Norwegian Air Force was so called SCAR ( Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance ) missions, meaning that it was up to the pilots themselves to find suitable targets. The reason why the media wrote so much about it is that it's rare that Norway sends it's fighters out of the country on missions and even rarer that we bomb anything let alone bomb the amount we did in Libya. For the record, Denmark bombed alot more than Norway.

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 45):
that you were better than all the rest...the world should salute you

Where the did you get this nonsence from ?


Anyway


We are getting a bit off topic here ...

[Edited 2013-03-29 03:25:32]

User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14461 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 28):

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?

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 with its vast Crow Valley Bombing Range was for a decade host to many detachments of Skyhawks and Tiger IIs for advanced munitions drop and gunnery training...till Mt Pinatubo decided to blow its top.
In fact, not just the air force but all three armed services have both long and short term basing agreements with various countries near and far because we simply have too little real estate.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14464 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 43):
I'm just amazed that a country With around the same population as Norway, has so many fighters compared to Norway.

Singapore is completely surrounded by vastly more populous entities that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered as buddies. Even the "friendly" ties of recent years were not without their occasional strains in relations.
We have to be armed to the teeth to be an effective deterrence to being ridden roughshod over by some two-bit politicians wanting to score points with their own fanboys. When they rattle their sabers, we can show them our bigger ones.  



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days ago) and read 14359 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 49):
Singapore is completely surrounded by vastly more populous entities that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered as buddies

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 between them? If I am not mistaken, in Singapore, there are millions of border crossings every day. If their neighbors are so hostile, why all the trade and open borders?

I lived in, what was then West Germany during the cold war, very close to the East German border and I can tell you first hand how hostile countries behave towards each other. It looks entirely different from what goes on between Singapore and its neighbors. Not even close. Nations that are hostile to each other don't entwine their cultures and economies together.

That aside, I think the only reason Singapore would want the F-35B, is because of a lack of real estate in Singapore and the smaller space the STVOL B version can operate from, compared to anything else. I really don't think they care about the stealth and other features. Being that the F-35 is not even going to be combat ready until at least 2019, according the the GAO and DoD, I don't see why Singapore would want any before 2019, unless they really don't care about it's combat effectiveness.

I still have my doubts about an order being announced. At the most maybe they'll announce an intent, but that's just talk, like all the other nations that had signaled in the past but haven't ordered as they had said.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2106 posts, RR: 4
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 14332 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
Besides, nothing short of the release of nuclear weapons would stop China from taking Singapore if China wanted to.

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 when China has a couple of operational carriers and a small fleet of amphibious assault ships.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 49):
Singapore is completely surrounded by vastly more populous entities that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered as buddies

Good to hear from a native person in matters pertaining to the subject country. More power and weight to your words.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 50):
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 between them?

We (the US) have huge trade with China and have a "Free Trade Agreement" and other treaties with China, but we still build our arm forces to counter a potential Chinese threat.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14396 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 51):
We (the US) have huge trade with China and have a "Free Trade Agreement" and other treaties with China, but we still build our arm forces to counter a potential Chinese threat.

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. Most of the U.S. concerns are defending places like Taiwan from China, places like - Taiwan and, um....Taiwan. That's about it. Even then, what the US would do if China went crazy on Taiwan would be up to the President, not the military.

The economic price China would have to pay for going into Taiwan or tiny Singapore rises daily as the Chinese economy is global export oriented and only growing. I doubt they would jeopardize that over historical territorial claims in Taiwan. They don't make any claims on anything Singaporean.

The Chinese Communist Party has enough economic domestic worries and domestic flare ups against it, to want to add those problems onto their plate, IMHO.

This is no bluff and is evident in that China has the death penalty for corruption, embezzlement and other public offenses. People get executed every year in China over that stuff. They are very sensitive about providing economic opportunities, growth and wealth to maintain political control. They know that people will put up with a lot or crap, but when they go hungry or become destitute, the masses can easily turn on the establishment. Needlessly starting a war of choice with anyone, would jeopardize the Chinese power structure and their economy.

I doubt China would jeopardize the entire Chinese economy over a small island like Singapore. Makes no sense, nor does China make any Singaporean territorial claims in any way, like they do against Taiwan. Nor do the two have any overlapping claims. Not to speak of the fact that China is thousands of miles from Singapore with several countries between them. However, the story of a Chinese threat against Singapore does make for good Kabuki theater.

If Singapore wanted the full capabilities of the F-35, they would go with the A or C versions. Probably the A. The fact they are evaluating the B Vertical landing version, which carries only 50% of the other two, only tells me they are primarily concerned with more the space required on the ground than with performance.

[Edited 2013-03-29 14:51:23]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 14368 times:

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 Security Co-operation Participant, while it cannot influence the design of the aircraft, it has access to programme information and can request special studies. From what I am aware of, Singapore has requested a number of special studies on the F-35B.


The article below is a bit dated (its from 2012), but it explains the line of thinking of Singapore in depth and where they are likely to move.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/singapore-special/defence/


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14282 times:

If the F22 was possible to buy, would it have sold more than the F35? The price is now the same  

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13191 posts, RR: 77
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 14245 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 54):
If the F22 was possible to buy, would it have sold more than the F35? The price is now the same  

Japan was interested in getting some, however the US government wouldn't export to them.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 14044 times:

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 the same.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 14054 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 56):
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 the same.

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 well, instead of just one really, really well and can barely do other roles, unless you could afford having multiple unitaskers, and can really justify it.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2106 posts, RR: 4
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 3 hours ago) and read 14007 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 52):
I don't think the White House nor the US DoD sees China as a threat against US soil any time soon.

. . . 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



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13191 posts, RR: 77
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 3 hours ago) and read 13998 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 56):
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 the same.

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 groundings after an accident. It might have been related to the oxygen system, still it's a symptom of being so complex.
It's eye-watering expensive to operate, maintaining the skin for low observability a challenge.

It's so expensive, so complex and yes, so capable, the F-22 is best seen as more of a 'silver bullet' akin to the earlier F-117 - which it also replaced - than a mainstream combat aircraft.
The reason that there are just over 3 times as many F-22's than ever where F-117's reflects that the Raptor has the multi role potential - though that's only being realised gradually - rather than the highly specialised F-117.

So the Raptor occupies a space between 'silver bullet' types and the regular inventory.

I know plenty of people say many more should have been built, that was, whatever the original Cold War based intention of a one to one F-15 replacement, always unlikely to happen.
The numbers were reduced down to the final number by an administration who seriously ramped up defence spending, what they did not do, significantly, was to go the other way and restore, even a bit, the planned numbers of F-22's that had steadily reduced through the 1990's.
So it was not totally about money.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7288 posts, RR: 5
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13810 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 51):
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 when China has a couple of operational carriers and a small fleet of amphibious assault ships.

The real question is why would the Chinese have a go at Singapore, they have no claim on Singapore historically.


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13793 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 60):
The real question is why would the Chinese have a go at Singapore, they have no claim on Singapore historically.

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 Chang-O was there first.
China and Singapore besides being important trade partners do share certain cultural traits and traditions.
Those ties that bind is very important to China as a bridge to the rest of the world.
Unless some deviant person/group came to power in the not-near future, the Middle Kingdom is not going to attempt or even contemplate to swallow up the Little Red Dot.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineinfinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13797 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 60):
The real question is why would the Chinese have a go at Singapore, they have no claim on Singapore historically.

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 claim anyway?

If anything, China definitely wants to influence and assert control over the whole 10-country ASEAN block which. I believe this is the real motivation for their assertiveness on the South China Sea islands.

[Edited 2013-04-02 07:56:49]

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2106 posts, RR: 4
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 13733 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 61):

I was talking from a militray logistic stand point.

I agree with you from the geo-political and cultural stand point.

Quoting infinit (Reply 62):
akin to China staking a claim on New Zealand.

or akin to Austrailia taking over New Zealand.   

Quoting neutrino (Reply 61):
China and Singapore besides being important trade partners do share certain cultural traits and traditions.
Those ties that bind is very important to China as a bridge to the rest of the world.

Which begs me to ask . . . will the military sensitive stuff that will come with owning the F-35 be safe in Singapore? or will the information will end up in China? Assuming China don't already have the information.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 13720 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 63):
Which begs me to ask . . . will the military sensitive stuff that will come with owning the F-35 be safe in Singapore? or will the information will end up in China? Assuming China don't already have the information.

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 republic knows how to walk the tightrope between these two world giants. She would have set out OB (out of bounds) markers on what is acceptable and appropriate to give and take. The illegal transfer of technology would definitely be covered. The Little Red Dot's reputation for trustworthiness does not come by accident but was built up by her conduct over the years. The US must have deemed the reliability good enough to have welcomed the island nation - together with Israel - as Security Cooperative Participants in the F-35 programme. China have also dealt with Singapore long enough to know that certain things are non-negotiable. What China wants (of the F-35), China will get...but not from Singapore.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7288 posts, RR: 5
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 13716 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 63):
or akin to Austrailia taking over New Zealand.

nah bro we've been silently taking over Australia for a long while.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 13689 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 63):
Which begs me to ask . . . will the military sensitive stuff that will come with owning the F-35 be safe in Singapore? or will the information will end up in China? Assuming China don't already have the information.

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 until 1990 when formal diplomatic relations were formed, but Singapore continues to have very strong unofficial relations with the ROC. Remember that Singapore was the last country in the Southeast Asia region to recognize the PRC.

They've walked a very fine line since then with respect to relations between mainland China and Taiwan. The proof of this being that Singapore maintains a extensive training facility for its military on Taiwan and regularly conducts military exercises on Taiwan despite mainland China being a massive trading partner.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 64):
The US must have deemed the reliability good enough to have welcomed the island nation - together with Israel - as Security Cooperative Participants in the F-35 programme.

Indeed, otherwise the US would not have sold Singapore advanced weaponry (such as the F-16 Block 52+'s and the F-15SG's), nor would have signed an agreement to use Changi Naval Base for visiting USN ships to be replenished and in the future, to base a number of USN LCS's out from. The Americans trust Singapore.

Quoting infinit (Reply 62):
If anything, China definitely wants to influence and assert control over the whole 10-country ASEAN block which. I believe this is the real motivation for their assertiveness on the South China Sea islands.

If anything, this will be the biggest thing. Remember that half of the world's tanker traffic, and a fifth of the world's container traffic goes through Singapore, beyond the fact they occupy a very strategic naval choke point. Whoever controls Singapore controls trade between Asia and Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and one of the biggest things the Chinese will be most concerned about is oil, as much of the oil the Chinese imports still comes via tanker traffic.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2106 posts, RR: 4
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 13553 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 64):
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 66):

Good information.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 13440 times:

I assume there is no order materializing as the journalist claimed there would be by now. Bad journalism.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 12650 times:

Bogdan says Singapore's order will probably come in the summer:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

Quote:
Singapore has shown "tremendous interest" in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter developed by Lockheed Martin Corp and will likely decide by this summer whether to buy the new warplane, the Pentagon's F-35 program chief said on Wednesday.

Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan told a subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee that he expected Singapore to decide by this summer whether to join the multinational fighter plane program.

Also noted is the time frame for South Korea's decision:

Quote:
He said he was also cautiously optimistic that South Korea could decide to buy the radar-evading F-35 in its 60-fighter competition, with a decision expected there in June.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9740 times:

Update on the Singaporean situation:
http://www.airforcemag.com/DWG/Docum...013/July%202013/072913Carlisle.pdf

See page 13 regarding comments made by General Herbert Carlisle, Commander, Pacific Air Forces, USAF. The important bit is below:

Quote:
General Carlisle: I talked to their CDF [Chief of Defense Force], Chee Meng. I was just in Singapore. Singapore’s decided to buy the B model, the VSTOL variant to begin with. But I don’t know where they’re at in putting it into their budget. I know that’s a decision that’s been made and that’s why they’re part of the program, but I don’t know where they’re at in putting that in the budget.

It appears that for Singapore, they are looking at the long term.


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9554 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 70):
It appears that for Singapore, they are looking at the long term.

Don't we always?  
Granted that at times our "radar" might be faulty but the "design range" is always beyond the horizon.  



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineangmoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 483 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9290 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 71):
Don't we always?  
Granted that at times our "radar" might be faulty but the "design range" is always beyond the horizon.  


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 not come anytime soon. That does not mean that there is not a lot of activity in the background. Same as with the Gulfstream AWACS fleet: an order for a brand new model plane was announced with first delivery 1 year later and the deliveries proceeded on schedule. I am pretty sure 10 years+ of significant amounts of work and investments in the background preceded that.

I expect a top-up order for the F-15 before an official F35 order. Singapore only buys planes which are ready to be deployed to the frontline immediately.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9274 times:

Quoting angmoh (Reply 72):

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 not come anytime soon. That does not mean that there is not a lot of activity in the background

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 Participant in the F-35 programme since 2003, they had the right to request information and have studies done at their request. I do believe that Singapore has asked for a number of studies be done on the F-35B in particular.

The other Security Cooperative Participant, Israel, has already placed orders for F-35, and they will be the first foreign user to operate the F-35.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 74, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9228 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 73):
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 Participant in the F-35 programme since 2003, they had the right to request information and have studies done at their request. I do believe that Singapore has asked for a number of studies be done on the F-35B in particular.

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.defenseindustrydaily.com/koreas-fx-multirole-fighter-buy-phase-2-the-race-is-on-02966/



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9229 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 74):

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.defenseindustrydaily.com/koreas-fx-multirole-fighter-buy-phase-2-the-race-is-on-02966/

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 confirmed that Singapore will be a F-35 customer:

Quote:
General Carlisle: I talked to their CDF [Chief of Defense Force], Chee Meng. I was just in Singapore. Singapore’s decided to buy the B model, the VSTOL variant to begin with. But I don’t know where they’re at in putting it into their budget. I know that’s a decision that’s been made and that’s why they’re part of the program, but I don’t know where they’re at in putting that in the budget.

Signapore's Chief of Defence is directly appointed by Singapore's President on advice of the Prime Minister of Singapore. That indicates a very high level of government support for a F-35 purchase.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 76, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9070 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 75):
But I don’t know where they’re at in putting it into their budget.

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 decision at all.

Singapore seems to frequently have an imminent announcement on F-35s purchases and perhaps always will.


User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 714 posts, RR: 2
Reply 77, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8085 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 75):
Signapore's Chief of Defence is directly appointed by Singapore's President on advice of the Prime Minister of Singapore.

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)!



Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (11 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7234 times:

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.yahoo.com/news/loc...yes-dozens-orders-f-150727603.html


Also, note that the article also talks about other orders coming up; Japan with 4 as part of their plans for 42 next year, Norway with 6 more this December, the UK next month with 14, Turkey with their initial 2 by December or January, and Belgium late next year or in early 2015.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 79, posted (9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5524 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 69):
Bogdan says Singapore's order will probably come in the summer:

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 countries, the USA included:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...e-in-second-attack-in-a-month.html

It begs the question what Singapore is doing with all of its military hardware.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5372 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 79):
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 countries, the USA included:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...e-in-second-attack-in-a-month.html

It begs the question what Singapore is doing with all of its military hardware.

As mentioned before, the problem relates more to Singapore's neighbour, Indonesia and Malaysia, not Singapore. Singapore can't enter Malaysian or Indonesian waters to patrol there. And the Strait of Malacca is the busiest shipping route in the entire world.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4277 times:

News: A Singaporean delegation has arrived at Luke AFB to view the F-35B closer up:
http://www.ktar.com/?nid=22&sid=1683964

Quote:
GLENDALE, Ariz. -- Singapore defense officials visiting an Air Force base in Arizona have gotten a look at a new American fighter that the Asian nation may purchase.

Luke Air Force Base officials say an F-35B from Marine Corps Air Station Yuma flew to the pilot-training base just west of Phoenix on Tuesday.
http://www.kpho.com/story/24186998/f...aft-spotted-at-luke-air-force-base

Quote:
LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, AZ (CBS5) - The F-35B was the star of the show at Luke Air Force Base Tuesday morning.

"I heard a rumor it was going to be here for the Singapore guys to check it out, so I wanted to see it in action and I came out, see if I could get a photograph," said USAF veteran Richard Arthur.

Luke AFB is of course home to the Singaporean training base for F-16's, with a number of RSAF pilots and crew stationed there with their jets as the USAF 425th Fighter Squadron.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3857 times:

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 great hurry, but we are very interested.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ase-f-35s-defence-minister-394112/

Quote:
Singapore’s defence minister has reaffirmed the nation’s interest in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), but says there is no great rush to order the type.

In a joint press conference with his US counterpart in Washington DC, Singapore defence minister Ng Eng Hen said Singapore is “in no particular hurry because our [Lockheed Martin] F-16s are still very operational, they are due for upgrades but it is a serious consideration…”

Observers of the Singapore air force have tended to take the view that Singapore will first replace its 26 obsolescent Northrop F-5s with F-35s. An F-16 replacement programme is perhaps two decades away, however.

Singapore has not formally announced an upgrade programme for its 60 F-16s, but any such programme would likely extend the capability of these aircraft until the 2030s.


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