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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Latest CV news around the region

India:

India is trying to restart work on the locally built 40k ton IAC.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/kerala/work…

Whilst the long awaited ex-Russki carrier is completing final trials after boiler problems and due to enter service in mid-2013.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/final-trials-...

China:

China on the other hand, has been doing more than just issuing commemorative aircraft carrier coins. They are also building even more oilers to support the growing fleet.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/17/...

Possible test suggested for China’s anti- aircraft carrier missile. Most assume this is US targeted.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-successfull…

US:

Meanwhile US running out of money. Guam CVN wharf still remains unfunded.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/12/gannett-m…

as CVN numbers drop to 9 as Abe Lincoln goes for a 4 year overhaul, Ford is due in 2015 and Enterprise is finally going where other enterprises have gone (into retirement).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10…

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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?

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.

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?

That’s why I keep repeating. There are many airbases in Singapore. Give up one still got enough runways to field the entire RSAF x 2.

Cheers!

Originally posted by storywolf:

can someone explain to me why weasel1962 is using URA - PSM price to calculate rent for airfield - URA figures are indoor rental rate for shopping centers and commerical hubs.

Have anyone see airbase build inside shopping center or inside a business hub - pls let me know.

 

I'll speak slowww..llyyy...(or can just read previous pages...

If the RSAF were willing to give up an airbase, the Government can sell the land on the airbase to fund things like more aircraft and even CVEs......thus making CVEs "affordable". The Government doesn't sell land to rent airbase or plant oil palm. In Singapore, the Government sells land to developers to build things like condos, hotels and malls....hope you can understand or maybe I tyyyyppppeee slllooowwwerrr?

If someone strikes a frigate how? It sinks lah. The idea is to avoid getting it sunk. If RSN can build formidable frigates and even less armed endurance LPDs without getting those sunk, why can't it operate better armed vessels like CVEs? Why risk our sailors?

Why did US build 122 escort carriers in WW2? They could have build tons of airbases (which they did) instead of escort carriers. They could also have build fleet carriers (which they did but just 29) instead of escort carriers.

In any case, this is merely a hypothetical thread. So I'd highlight something more fun to read than my posts: the battle of samar

http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-samar

6 escort carriers & 7 DD/DE fighting off the entire Japanese fleet (incl Yamato/Musashi).

"In no engagement of its entire history has the United States Navy shown more gallantry, guts and gumption than in those two morning hours between 0730 and 0930 off Samar" — Rear Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison History of United States Naval Operations in World War II Volume XII, Leyte

Originally posted by sgdiehard:

Lets put thing in perspective.

Aircraft carrier is a weapon for power projection.  Why do we need F15/F16 to loiter in an area 1000nm away? The sinking of the prince of wales and the repulse by land based bombers again prove that an airbase can do the job for our purpose.

An airbase is just another important installation in Singapore defended the whole integrated air defence system. an aircraft carrier is on its own, it has to depend on the escorting surface warships and submarine.

an aircraft carrier can be sunk by a torpedo from submarine, a cruise missle from surface warship and aircraft. Once sunk, bye bye, and the escorting vessels rendered useless!!!  a torpedo can't destroy an air base, a cruise missiles can destroy one installation in the airport, not all. So an airbase can be bombed many times, Lim Chu Kang Road, or ECP can be converted into runway, supplies for the airbase can be replenished from nearby facilities.

Don't think we need math to do comparison.

 

 

An escort carrier is a vessel that performs escort duties. The RSAF cannot provide effective air cover and defend SLOC beyond a few hundred nautical miles. Singapore relies on shipping to maintain its economy. Those ships travels from thousands of nautical miles away. Currently the RSN only has frigates capable of performing escort duties. A frigate carries 1 helicopter only and has minimal air defences. A frigate as well as merchant ships can be sunk by torpedoes and aircraft. However, Singapore still needs combat vessels and a navy.

An escort carrier does not mean Singapore does not have airbases. An escort carrier escorts vessels. Unlike a fleet carrier, it it doesn't need to rely on escorting warships. It does however improve air, anti-ship and anti-submarine cover. A torpedo can sink an escort carrier. Singapore, as a maritime nation, needs a navy. RSN operates in seas greater than a few hundred nautical miles from Singapore. Torpedoes and aircraft are more likely to sink the RSN fleet without an escort carrier than with one.

If one can't understand the math, hopefully one can understand the above.

I’ll throw in more math on the question of whether we have an airbase to spare?

Source:
www.fas.org/nuke/intro/aircraft/afman32-1123.pdf

Workings:
Single runway capacity – 40 to 50 IFR movements or 75 VFR movements (pg 30, item 3.4 of attached link). Higher movements if counting parallel runway + emergency runways.

RSAF fighter fleet: 24 x F-15SG + 60 x F-16C/D.
10 or more F-15SG based at Mountain Home AFB.
Assuming 80% serviceability rate [USAF = 75%] = (24+60-10)*80% = 60 fighters available at any one time.
40 IFR movements x 24 hour = 960 movements = 480 sorties per day.
Sorties per day (480 sorties / 60 fighters) = 8 sorties per day [USAF combat experience = 1 per day, F-35A has 3 max sorties per day design specs, F-35B has 4 max sorties per day design specs]

Above doesn’t take into account operation of parallel runway, emergency runway or paired take-offs and landings (double the movements).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Based on the above, a single airbase (eg TAB, PLAB or CAB) should in theory, seen from a sorties perspective, be able to take off the entire RSAF fighter force within a single hour. One airbase can operate the twice the size of the entire fighter fleet for the entire day at 8 times the sortie rate that USAF operates at, not counting redundancy from parallel/emergency runways.

The best part is a VSTOL aircraft like the F-35B can make use of other runways (Seletar/Sembawang) which other fixed wing cannot fully utilise (thereby increasing sortie rates further).

Where is the loss in security in trading an airbase for a couple of CVEs and a couple of fighter squadrons? End up with better fleet protection, more fighters, more money/less taxes, more living space.

You’re not comparing apples to apples. Land cost and land sales are 2 different measurements. Land cost of paya lebar probably cost $XXm or less as this was 70 years ago. Gahmen would not sell land to itself.

Using actual public data from the below on actual land sales (leasehold only).
http://www.ura.gov.sg/sales/residential/vacants…

Simple math. Assume psm is $11k per sq m. 3 sq km = 3,000,000 sq m. $11k x 3m sq m = $33b.

Its a ballpark figure. $11k is realistic imho cos that’s based on GFA. Without an airbase, plot ratio can be as high as 3.5 (no more height restriction). That means effective psm is only $3.14k psm. If 5 sq km, then higher. If psm is lower, then total revenue lower but it makes no sense to redevelop 3 sq km into a car-park. This is government revenue, not actual land price by developer. If taking developer price, the knock on effects on GDP would be higher than $33b.