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

[Cestbon]

It is still not fully operational and by 2012 perhaps a few will be delivered. We had our first G550 in 2008. How long will it take if we were to order the E-2D as the US will take first priority in deliveries?

G550 already in operation. Go Sg Tengah airbase everyday G550 are in the air for training/in operation.

 

[groober2011]

The A4s we bought were in service in early 1950's. They hardly flew and were mothballed in the Arizona desert. Their structures were almost new and therefore it was a good buy. The Malaysians bought some but we were first and we took the best. Those that Malaysia bought were hardly flown and grounded, It was a sheer waste of money whereas we got our money's worth.

If they can upgrade those Vietnam era A4S skyhawk in the 80s why not E2C? Even the USN is still using and they are using it for carrier landing which stresses much more on aircraft structure.

I answered before you posted.

 

[groober2011]

G550 already in operation. Go Sg Tengah airbase everyday G550 are in the air for training/in operation.

That's right and the G550 first roll-out was in 2003. It is considered one of the best executive-class aircraft today.

 

[Jlokta]

The A4s we bought were in service in early 1950's. They hardly flew and were mothballed in the Arizona desert. Their structures were almost new and therefore it was a good buy. The Malaysians bought some but we were first and we took the best. Those that Malaysia bought were hardly flown and grounded, It was a sheer waste of money whereas we got our money's worth.

our neighbours up north bought alot of exotic planes but not all are functional.

its either due to the competancy of the pilots or the lack of maintenance of the planes.

 

[wikiphile]

The A4s we bought were in service in early 1950's. They hardly flew and were mothballed in the Arizona desert. Their structures were almost new and therefore it was a good buy. The Malaysians bought some but we were first and we took the best. Those that Malaysia bought were hardly flown and grounded, It was a sheer waste of money whereas we got our money's worth.

It's still a very cost effective platform, the Brazillian Navy still operates A-4s out of their aircraft carriers. The Indonesians retired theirs due to it being overworked and facing an arms embargo back in the 2000s from the US. I think SAF still uses them for training purposes in France

 

[groober2011]

our neighbours up north bought alot of exotic planes but not all are functional.

its either due to the competancy of the pilots or the lack of maintenance of the planes.

Their due diligence for making defence purchases is on how much goes into their pockets.

 

[wikiphile]

our neighbours up north bought alot of exotic planes but not all are functional.

its either due to the competancy of the pilots or the lack of maintenance of the planes.

The Mig-29s and the F-18s especially. Their strategy of not depending on only one bloc military supplier backfired due to maintenance and spares issues. The logistics nightmare was predictable but mats being mats amplified fuck ups five fold at least

 

[groober2011]

It's still a very cost effective platform, the Brazillian Navy still operates A-4s out of their aircraft carriers. The Indonesians retired theirs due to it being overworked and facing an arms embargo back in the 2000s from the US. I think SAF still uses them for training purposes in France

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

 

[Jlokta]

Their due diligence for making defence purchases is on how much goes into their pockets.

hehehehehe... i like your comment bro.

i just hope its not the same here..

 

[Jlokta]

The Mig-29s and the F-18s especially. Their strategy of not depending on only one bloc military supplier backfired due to maintenance and spares issues. The logistics nightmare was predictable but mats being mats amplified fuck ups five fold at least

hehehehehe.. seems like there's a couple of air force guy in this thread.

 

[wikiphile]

hehehehehe... i like your comment bro.

i just hope its not the same here..

It's not that bad but a huge chunk of it feeds Temasek and its subsidaries

 

[groober2011]

It's still a very cost effective platform, the Brazillian Navy still operates A-4s out of their aircraft carriers. The Indonesians retired theirs due to it being overworked and facing an arms embargo back in the 2000s from the US. I think SAF still uses them for training purposes in France

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

 

[geylangchickenloyangduck]

The Mig-29s and the F-18s especially. Their strategy of not depending on only one bloc military supplier backfired due to maintenance and spares issues. The logistics nightmare was predictable but mats being mats amplified fuck ups five fold at least

nah beh....we must not forget, our neighbors can lose some aircraft engines ...so better to have different types - in case one type of engine lost, can still fly other planes. LOL

 

[wikiphile]

hehehehehe.. seems like there's a couple of air force guy in this thread.

Quite so, i was from the Army myself but not quite Army. Can't explain it too clearly here but please take my word that i know what i am sprouting about

 

[3_M]

I answered before you posted.

E2C was designed for carrier landing. We only use that for normal runway which is way below the threshold limit it was designed and I don't expect any structural failure on our E2C. Aircraft can keep flying for as long as it airworthy. There is no mandatory "retirement age" for aircraft. As for engine, all aircraft are require to change engine after clocking certain hours typically between 1,200 to 2,00 hrs , it call Time-Before-Overhaul (TBO). So while the plane is old, the engine is certainly not.

 

[geylangchickenloyangduck]

E2C was designed for carrier landing. We only use that for normal runway which is way below the threshold limit it was designed and I don't expect any structural failure on our E2C. Aircraft can keep flying for as long as it airworthy. There is no mandatory "retirement age" for aircraft. As for engine, all aircraft are require to change engine after clocking certain hours typically between 1,200 to 2,00 hrs , it call Time-Before-Overhaul (TBO). So while the plane is old, the engine is certainly not.

nah beh....still i think there is a limit of extension.

E2C turboprop, difficult to refuel midair esp with KC5. Maybe KC5 will go into stall to keep up the speed. If no midair refuel, limited fuel range. And 25 year, fuel guzzler. And with jet fuel so ex, high fuel bill.

honestly, think perhaps, the dish on top is ex to maintain as well

 

[3_M]

Just before it got propeller doesn't mean it turboprop. It turbine engine.

 

[wikiphile]

E2C was designed for carrier landing. We only use that for normal runway which is way below the threshold limit it was designed and I don't expect any structural failure on our E2C. Aircraft can keep flying for as long as it airworthy. There is no mandatory "retirement age" for aircraft. As for engine, all aircraft are require to change engine after clocking certain hours typically between 1,200 to 2,00 hrs , it call Time-Before-Overhaul (TBO). So while the plane is old, the engine is certainly not.

Quite so, look at the Granddaddy-Os of the USAF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

 

[groober2011]

E2C was designed for carrier landing. We only use that for normal runway which is way below the threshold limit it was designed and I don't expect any structural failure on our E2C. Aircraft can keep flying for as long as it airworthy. There is no mandatory "retirement age" for aircraft. As for engine, all aircraft are require to change engine after clocking certain hours typically between 1,200 to 2,00 hrs , it call Time-Before-Overhaul (TBO). So while the plane is old, the engine is certainly not.

Engines are interchangeable that is correct. Mandatory life cycles for structures do exist but in this case I have no idea how much stress has been absorbed by these aircraft. These have flown for 25 years practically non-stop so....

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

 

[Cestbon]

nah beh....still i think there is a limit of extension.

E2C turboprop, difficult to refuel midair esp with KC5. Maybe KC5 will go into stall to keep up the speed. If no midair refuel, limited fuel range. And 25 year, fuel guzzler. And with jet fuel so ex, high fuel bill.

honestly, think perhaps, the dish on top is ex to maintain as well

Tuboprop engine is more fuel efficient that jet engine.