20 Dec, 04:02AM in sunny Singapore!

Recent Posts by weasel1962

Subscribe to Recent Posts by weasel1962

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • The L2A5 added armour to the L2A4 which is exactly what SAF did. There were also other design changes e.g. gunner sight, gun braking in L2A5 but the L2SG can probably be considered an L2A5 equivalent. The L2A6 introduced a L55 gun.

      The 182 number is taken off a SIPRI report which can be accessed from below.

      http://www.sipri.org/

      More accurate (in my opinion) data is probably from UN arms register. In that register, the German Government reported 158 sold to Singapore whilst Singapore Government acknowledged 156 (up to year 2012). 2013 deliveries will only be reported in July/August.

      http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Register/

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • The answer is possible. Check out the rsaf vocations website to see what roles a non-engineering poly grad can play. Minimum requirement is A levels/NITEC.

      http://www.mindef.gov.sg/rsaf/careers/careers/vocations.html

      Note: For pilot, having a PPL helps. Otherwise, a lot of other important roles are available. Unlike army, most air force roles are non-gender specific, however citizenship is required.

      Edited by weasel1962 07 May `14, 10:48AM
  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • It is more F-15s AND F-35s! The decision to shift PLAB already funds both acquisitions. The F-15SE is not as stealthy as the F-35 so the incremental benefit compared to the F-15SG may not justify the added cost i.e. F-15SG almost as effective. AFM july 2013 issue already reports Singapore has ordered another sqn of F-15SG as F-15SE & F-35 not ready yet. In any case, many of the F-15SE features e.g. CWB can be retrofitted on F-15SG.

      If just more F-15SEs are bought, Singapore will need more airbases as each F-15 needs minimum 8000 ft runway.This has to be funded by tax increases as PLAB cannot be spared. Saudi spent $30 billion for 84 F-15SA (not even -SE) so that's a lot of taxes to raise.

      On the F-35, recent reports indicate 75 will be bought which presumably will replace the F-16s. In selecting the F-35B variant, this allows the RSAF to buy more fighters in exchange for PLAB land sales. The F-35B can take off in under 600 ft of runway without ski jump and no need runway to land so more aircraft can be based per runway! Recent land sales data show each hectare can fetch as much as S$300m or more for Paya Lebar area (todays prices not even counting future inflation). In 2030, the land price could be even higher. PLAB = 800 hectares.

      Edited by weasel1962 23 Aug `13, 2:30PM
  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • Story is similar to "A few good men" except that in real life, only the sergeants get convicted and the officers get a slap in the wrist. No Tom Cruise in real life and lots of dumb Demi Moores.

      Who ordered the code red?

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • The irony is that starvation might have killed more civilians esp children than bombs would. This esp when food always goes to soldiers first. And the top who makes the decisions end up always getting fed.

      Its easy to see things with hindsight. But in 1945, the US was looking for the quickest way to end the war. Starvation could have been a significantly longer process. I remember reading that an operations analyst commitee working for the joint chiefs calculated it might have taken 2 years from 1945 to force Japan to surrender thru blockade alone. Not everyone would know in 1945 how much impact the blockade would have had on Japan. People know now the blockade was working but did people know in 1945 that the blockade was working? Fog of war.

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • Originally posted by Summer hill:

       

      The blockade was working. Japan has never had the resources on the home islands to feed her people and fuel her industries. The people were slowly starving and industrial complexes had all but shut down. Even if Japan still had the will to fight, she lacked the ability. To be sure, plans for Operation Downfall (for the invasion of the Japanese home islands) had been prepared. Casualty estimates that ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous and been forecast. It is common sense to draw up battle plans and contingencies. It is another matter entirely to put them in motion. The Germans had plans for the Invasion of Great Britain but they never seriously considered going forward with Operation Sealion. The US had continuously revised the Rainbow Five, but no one in the Pentagon thought for a moment that the US would invade Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland or India. Likewise, no one believed for an instant that the invasion of Japan would ever come to pass. It simply wasn't going to be necessary.


      http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V1/ch13.htm

      The Joint chiefs including MacArthur were prepared to invade Japan. In particular, one should consider MacArthur's 3 options which covered the scenarios discussed plus invasion (read link above, pp 397-398) and pertinent to note MacArthur's preferred option was to invade rather than bomb/blockade. It was Truman who decided to go ahead with the atom bomb after Okinawa showed how many casaulties could be caused by an invasion. The C-in-C has the last say.

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • Japan never would have surrendered just through isolation. By war’s end, Japan was still holding on to many territories including Singapore, Taiwan etc. Japan would have continued the policy of kamikaze pilots and constructing its war machines because that’s their psyche. The 2 atom bombs compelled the emperor to force his military to seek terms i.e. surrender. Those are the facts. It was also because the Japs did not know that the US only had 2 atom bombs and Roosevelt threatened to carry on atom bombing the Japanese cities. Without the emperor’s intervention, the military was prepared to continue the war indefinitely (or so they said).

      In a way, the atom bombs, despite their devastation, freed Singapore earlier. The atom bombs killed far less people than the B-29 bombings and fire raids did but the latter did not force the emperor to seek peace.

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • US burning their $B (aka printing money) is good for SG as it lowers the exchange rate. So something that cost S$200 last time only cost S$120 today. That’s partly how we have managed to stretch our defence dollars.

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • If one accepts the argument that one shouldn’t build a ship as it can be sunk, then no country in the world should have a navy.

      It could literally takes hundreds of aircraft, dozens of ships and thousands of missiles to knock out a carrier. How many countries can afford that attrition ratio?

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • China approves research funding for nuclear reactors that may power aircraft carriers

      http://www.ptinews.com/news/3405961_China-approves-funding-for-nuclear-powered-ships-

      News is not new as a CVN has been suggested under a type 089 project since 2007. Indeed, China was then suggested to be intending to build 1-2 Varyag sized carriers under a type 085 project by 2015. LHD projects have also been suggested under type 075 projects. A research project on nuclear propulsion is expected to take several years to complete. Some analysts have suggested that the study may be completed earlier if the propulsion system is based on existing submarine reactors (possibly multiple units hooked up together). imho, submarine nuclear reactors generate a lot less electricity than CVNs as the usage patterns are different. In the context of increasing china oil imports, the move to nuclear propulsion (even for commercial marine applications where supertankers can be as big or larger than CVNs) is not surprising.

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • Flight reports contract for 2 more S-70Bs due for delivery in 2016.

      http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singa…

      The date coincides with the delivery of fearless-class replacement patrol vessels which suggest the new class may include helipads. Recently, ST has also been awarded a contract to supply Oman with helipad-equipped PVs based on the Fearless-75 platform. The weapons fit per Flight report is unclear.

      The 6 x RSAF S-70B in service are equipped only with Whitehead torpedoes but can be equipped with Mk-54 torpedoes, hellfire missiles or penguin anti-ship missiles. Hellfire missiles are already used on RSAF AH-64Ds. The Penguin missile has been marketed to RSAF in several prior aerospace events (from Asian aerospace times). Although designed for the LAMPS III helicopters (S-70 derivatives), the 33km ranged missiles are also used on Norwegian & USAF F-16s. A switch to the Mk-54 from the ranged A/S244 whitehead torpedo is not expected. The mod 3 whitehead torpedo has a range exceeding 13km (officially listed as 6km on mindef website) and is in use with 15 navies.

      USAF factsheet on penguin missile
      http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?c…

      Whitehead brochure
      http://www.eurotorp.com/IMG/pdf/A244.pdf

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • The MOB was meant to be on water (semi-submersible). Hence maybe the tech required is that expensive. If on land, no need deck as already got airbases.

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • The US did consider in 2001 a simple offshore deck called the mobile offshore base (I think this was mentioned on pg 1, google for details). The 2km stretch would cost US$5b to US$8b.

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • With 470+ lost in accidents out of 946 procured, the Mig-21s aka “flying coffins” have been a surprise to the IAF alright. The last crash of a bison on my record was on Nov 24, 2012. The remaining including the 110+ bison (roughly 6 squadrons out of 9 Mig-21 sqn still in service) and another 70+ Mig-21 will be phased out between 2014-2017 period. Flight lists 152 still active. The Mig sqns still occupy almost 1/3 of IAF sqns although many squadrons are replaced by Su-30MKIs and hopefully will be completely replaced with the Rafale (if they get the contract finalised).

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • Originally posted by Warwolf:

      Paya Lebar Airbase is also used for delivering commercial aircraft for maintenance/servicing at the nearby ST Aerospace.

      What I can say is, the government will definitely not close down any of these 3 airbases for the next 10-20 years.

      The F-35s are currently still in prototype/testing phase and there's a lot of commotion going on with Lockheed Martin and the US govt regarding their funding and expenditure. It's kinda stuck right now so don't expect them to deliver so soon.


      I still don't think PLAB is fully utilised. Emergency runway probably gets invoked at most once a year (and there are lots of alternative commercial emergency runways in the region.). As to ST maintenance/servicing, I don't see much difficulty to shift those ops to other airbases. Most of the freight ops goes out of Changi/Seletar. Agree that Government, particularly the RSAF, will not lightly give up any of the airbases. Its easier just to budget $XX billions for new aircraft acquisition.

      Canada has just audited numbers to suggest 65 F-35As will cost C$44.8b (S$55.55b) for a 42 year service life or S$855m per F-35A. That's how much more SG taxpayers will just have to fork out per option A if we ignore option B. Pay and pay loh.

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • Originally posted by sgdiehard:

      There is no such thing called segregation of responsibilities!! Singapore's defence budget FY 2011/12 is a record $12.08 billion, 22% of our total FY2012 operating expenditure, about 5% of GDP. ST and other defence related industries are separate entities. These companies are responsible to their shareholders for what they do, if they don't make profit, they close!!

      Defence budget is allocated by the government for the defence of singapore, they use national budget that comes from taxes, from the people, not from profit. It is their duty to be prodent in how they spend, not how much they can get by selling airbase. If they sell paya lebar airbase, or tekong, the money goes right back to the government!

       

       


      Actually, there is segregation, otherwise why need so many ministries? MOF is responsible for Government budget. Personnally, I know MOF and Mindef works very closely on defence expenditure. Every ministry will have to provide a budget. If you think facilities management don't come under DSTA, think again. Infrastructure management comes under systems management. New camp etc all need money. Old camp gets demolished get redeveloped. Last one I can think of was Seletar.

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • When I did my NS, no maid leh. Fewer young people these days got respect for old ex-reservist….

      In my day, have to chong swa with very heavy equipment and dig trench while under the obligatory constant abuse. lol. Today, NSmen can play computer games eg simulator and got Ipad somemore! The difference most obvious to me is that I hear today NSnen in some camps take bath even got hot water!

      Singapore will eventually belong to next generation. They have decide for themselves whether NS is relevant. If they want to hear advice from oldie, that’s up to them. If they make wrong decision, they pay the price.

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • Not missing the point. Its called segregation of responsibilities. Actually, DSTA is the party responsible for implementing defence technology plans, acquiring defence materiel and developing defence infrastructure. Defence infrastructure is important to Singapore. The local defence industry partner is Singapore Technologies.

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • Originally posted by sgdiehard:

      defence is not an industry, if you want to generate income, tell mindef to invest in plan to turn bomb shells into chopping knife, rent out the amphibious crafts to carry tourists around the islands in Singapore, use helicopters to give singaporean a birdeyes view of marina bay and charging them $500 per ride......


      Defence is not an industry? Someone forgot to tell Singapore Technologies....

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • In defence, the generation of today is more tech-savvy. Why dig trench using changkol when a digger can do the same in 1/100th the time? Less need to chong swa when IFV carry troops all the way liao or better yet, press one button = enemy gone case. If we have the desire to protect our families and our homeland, we should encourage people to think what is the best way of doing it. Maybe NS still works today but will NS be relevant tomorrow?

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • If you look at the defence budget, the question is whether there are ways to generate more income, change how procurement works and manage defence $ better instead of merely think of defence expenditure as a straight line cost?

      That’s the same argument with the CVE. One can either look at the CVE or new fighters as merely extra $$$ spent or go back to the first question on page 23. Its a way of showing that CVEs can be more than affordable due to the trade-offs….or we can stick to the usual strategy of just pay more for defence.

  • weasel1962's Avatar
    684 posts since May '09
    • Paya Lebar airport used to handle hundreds of airliners and over 50,000 aircraft movements a year. Does the RSAF even fly 1/10th that amount every year?

      Once the F-5s retire which won’t be long, RSAF won’t be as big as it used to be. 70+ fighters (14 F-15s – 10 based in MHAFB, 60 F-16s) won’t need that many airbases to function efficiently. The F-50s and KC-135s are already based at Changi. Only 14 more transports/Awacs to base.

      The F-35s aren’t cheap. Canada already estimates 65 F-35As will cost C$30billion (S$37b) over 36 years service lifetime. That means a sqn of F-35s could cost as much as S$12b each. Singapore can’t even pay its bus drivers enough but we take the easy way out by raising bus fares. Sure, all these toys are as “affordable” as $2000 psf condos or $100k COE cars. How much additional fare will need to go up to pay for new fighters?