It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boeing F-15 wins Singapore fighter deal

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Boeing's F-15 wins key Singapore fighter deal over Rafale of France

SINGAPORE (AFP) Sep 07, 2005

The US-made Boeing F-15 Eagle has defeated the French-built Rafale in a dogfight for a billion-dollar fighter contract in Singapore, dealing a blow to European interests in Asia's booming arms market.
The French defense ministry has expressed "regret" following Singapore's announcement late Tuesday that it was in talks with Boeing for its new generation of fighters, a decision closely watched by other buyers.

"It is a sovereign decision of the Singaporean state. France respects it. Even if we regret it, this decision will not detract from the quality of our bilateral relations," the ministry said in a statement.

"In a hard-driving international competition involving several aircraft, the Rafale was one of the two finalists," the statement said, adding that "the current weakness of the dollar however seemed to have been a determining factor for our competition."


Article link


Sweet, a 30 year old American fighter still winning deals.




posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Unless the Saudi's go through with thier deal the Rafale is pretty much dead as far as an export fighter. I wonder if the AESA radar was the deal breaker or not? Do we know if that was offered?

They are replacing the A4SU Super Skyhawks. Talk about a major upgrade in capacity



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
This is very interesting.
I honestly thought the RAFALE would win.
GO to F-15



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Its singapore after all. What about all those ageing F-16s that they need to replace..
And yes, the AESA along with some 750 mil USD worth of ammo was offered.GBUs LGBs JDAMs.. you name it..



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Still says a lot about the Eagle that they'd take it. The Eagle is a good plane with many great capabilities, and a great record of service.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Yeah, maybe they figured the Eagle would do better with the Malay Su-30MKMs than maybe the Rafales would..
But they still keeping those blk 15 F-16s?
I heard they gave some of them off to Thailand..



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yeah, maybe they figured the Eagle would do better with the Malay Su-30MKMs than maybe the Rafales would..
But they still keeping those blk 15 F-16s?
I heard they gave some of them off to Thailand..


The F-16 can backstop the 15's or perhaps do maritime strike etc. The Rafale or F-15 would be too expensive for a replacement so they are most likely waiting on the JSF



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   
[sarcasm] originally posted by waynosThis naive assumption that the deal was struck due to operational capability considerations rather than, er, political considerations is quite sweet [/sarcasm].

The F-15 is a fine aircraft, I dare say superb even. But lets not kid ourselves that the deal hinged on what radar or missile fit was offered


The most capable of the three shortlisted contenders was the Typhoon, that was also the first to be eliminated. That, in itself, is perfectly justifiable if cost savings with the lighter and less able Rafale are taken into consideration as it is actually a perfectly good fighter and would be just as able as the Typhoon if France had wanted it that way and accepted the expense of it. Its ranking just behind the Typhoon is not a failing, it was a design choice.

However, Singapore has suddenly selected not just the least capable of the three competing finalists, but possibly the most expensive. It beggars belief, unless of course you look beyond the aircraft themselves.

The F-15 is a great fighter with no real faults, it carries the latest radar tech and a decent weapons fit. Its not as if its miles behind the other two, its a very close call in that respect. It also has this great track record that we all know about (though it is a truism that if the 'proven track record' was that important everyone would still be flying Sopwith Camels and Fokker D VII's as nothing new would ever be bought by anyone).

It IS however bigger, heavier and more expensive to operate than its younger rivals.

Don't underestimate the influence of the fact that it is produced by the USA in this competition. Remeber Bush's sinister ultimatum to Singapore that I posted on here over a year ago, "you are either with us, or against us", the implication of this statement was clear and it appears to have helped Boeings cause enormously. I do wonder how the Singapore defence budget will cope with the transition from maintaining and operating a force of A-4 Skyhawks to having to do the same with F-15's? That question also applies to the two losing fighters too, if slightly less so.

The common sense choice as far as I could see it would have actually been the Swedish Gripen as that would have given Singapore a leap in capability without too much of a financial hit in the long term, of course Swedens international influence is virtually zero so there you go.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   
I don't normally reply to myself but I just want to add a bit of context to my thinking in case you think its sour grapes against the USA on my part.

Back in the 70's the RAF was seriously interested in buying the F-15, it was the F-15A back then of course.

Upon evaluation the RAF identified several shortcomings when the F-15 was compare to the UK requirement. None of these were insurmountable, in fact a specialised air defence version of what later became the F-15E would have suited the RAF perfectly with its second crewman and extended range, the Skyflash missile would have been easily integrated etc etc .

The final nail in the coffin of a UK F-15 was its purchase price and lifecycle costs, thus we built the Tornado F.3 instead as it better met the RAF's own needs and cost a hell of a lot less.

The point is that the UK defence budget is much bigger than Singapores, the UK need is greater than Singapores and yet we could not justify the purchase of the F-15. Something doesn't add up.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Sour grapes? never


Maybe they got a bunch of offsets? Funny when this story first was posted I went to the Boeing web site and they have not as yet had a press release. Aviation Week does have the story but its in a sub defence mag that I do not access to so I have not found any information on the terms. Now if its anything like the E / K model with its strike capacity that may be a bit different than ordering a air superiority fighter outright.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Yes, I'm sure there will be offsets, thats a good point. I'm not sure if 'offsets' were really offered in the '70's or not. That would make a difference.

Though I still reckon that for the size of the country, Singapore could have found a much more affordable solution ( and I don't mean the Typhoon :lol


Having shortlisted those three I always felt the Rafale was the most likely winner (even though I am a bit of a Typhoon fan) on grounds of capability and life cycle costs. You just have to overlook its Frenchness to see a really decent aircraft.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   
another good question would be avaible part and supply chain with the f15 there is a huge pool or parts to feed from while i am sure the typhoon and rafele have tiny parts pool compared to the f15.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Char2c35t
another good question would be avaible part and supply chain with the f15 there is a huge pool or parts to feed from while i am sure the typhoon and rafele have tiny parts pool compared to the f15.



please explain this point further as I don't quite know how you come to this theory. If true it could well be afactor but (and I may be wrong) I would think that Dassault and Eurofighter are just a capable of supplying spares as Boeing are, maybe I'm missing something in your point?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Im a bit puzzled as well, but if you are refering to the maintneance costs, perhaps a deal was reached to reduce the ownership costs of the planes???



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   
nah i just ment a bigger pool of supplies in times of need, there are a lot more f-15's around the world equals more parts in the supply chain thus is say someone need a shock wingnut they can find and recieve said item fast maybe from a friendly neihbor than having to send for it from france or the uk which might have to be special order do to the fewer amount of planes in service thus having less parts in the supply pool at a given time.

more planes in service means more parts in service, isay if there are 10 lawn dart games in the world your not going to have 1000 of replacement parts per item of the lawn dart set the number will be vastly lower.

now if you had million lawn dart game sets in the world you would need a larger amount of replacement pieces.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Singapore says in final negotiations with Boeing over F-15 order
AFP / AFX
Tue, 6 Sep 2005, 09:24


The new fighters will replace a squadron of Singapore's aging A4SU Super Skyhawk fighter jets.

'This proposed sale includes weapons and logistics for the F-15 aircraft,' the defense security and cooperation agency said in a statement.

The defense agency said the proposed sale was worth 741 mln usd if all options are exercised.

The weapons include 200 AIM 120C advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM); 50 joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs) with 500-pound warheads; 30 AGM 154A-1 joint standoff weapons with 500-pound warheads; 30 AGM 154C joint standoff weapons; and 200 AIM 9X Sidewinder missiles.

www.defencetalk.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I see, thanks for explaining.

I don't think that would be a factor really, any manufacturer would have to guarantee a certain level of serviceability or face penalties, for the longer term, it might be easier to find scrap parts to keep them in service for a very long time, but I'm not sure this would be a factor when buying them new.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I see, thanks for explaining.

I don't think that would be a factor really, any manufacturer would have to guarantee a certain level of serviceability or face penalties, for the longer term, it might be easier to find scrap parts to keep them in service for a very long time, but I'm not sure this would be a factor when buying them new.


But i would love to know why they chose the F-15 over the newer airframes



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
it was just a thought aobut logostics

what about time to built and feild that could have been a factor as well, maybe the f15s were able to be put into serive faster than the other too?

i am just brainstorming



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Offsets, there is a pshychological aspect as well. Its really more of a strike fighter variant than for air surperiority.

Perhaps avalibility?
Perhaps JSF slots?
Maybe it the A/C they actually wanted?

Many variables in this.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join