A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
There have been a lot of debate and speculation about the utility of Singapore having an aircraft carrier. An aircraft carrier is not a new item in the region with Thailand and India operating carriers. Australia had previously operated carriers whilst China has announced its intentions to operate one. On a smaller scale, Korea, Japan and Australia have vessels capable of operating as semi-aircraft carriers. Singapore routinely hosts US aircraft carriers with a specialised dock in Changi.
There are several impediments to anyone owning an aircraft carrier.
(a) Cost is perhaps paramount. Carriers are expensive to build and operate. The 60k ton QE CVs cost S$3.6b to build whilst the Wasp LHAs cost S$4.8b. Thailand’s aircraft carrier ended up spending a lot of time in the port due to budget constraints.
(b) In comparison, land-based airports require less maintenance and can be expanded, if land is available.
(c) An aircraft carrier requires significant manpower to operate as well as maintain.
(d) An aircraft carrier requires expensive fleet escorts to defend against navel threats eg submarines, enemy surface combatants and hostile aircraft. Land-based airports do not sink.
But does the above hold in the context of Singapore?
Firstly, the cost required may not be so high.
(i) Cost
Spain recently launched the 27k ton Buque de Proyeccion Estrategica (Strategic protection ship), a semi-aircraft carrier/amphibious ship named Juan Carlos 1 which cost ~S$700+m to build. The ship is capable of operating as many as 30 x F-35Bs and was used as a base design for the Australian Canberras. There is a large correlation between size and cost. The larger the carrier, the greater the cost. A separate cost-benefit analysis would be needed to determine how large a carrier would be efficient for acquisition. The following factors may need to be considered.
- Construction industry base
Building an aircraft carrier requires specialised technical skills eg layout efficiency, deck temperature controls etc. However, Singapore shipbuilding will not be starting from scratch, having constructed the Endurance class. The greater the participation of the local ship building industry, the greater the portion of the cost would filter back to the local economy.
- Opportunity cost savings:
The above is often ignored. Basing aircraft on ships means less need to base aircraft on land. Unlike other countries, Singapore’s land comes at a significant premium (as anyone who stays in Singapore knows). Basing aircraft on ships will allow affected airfields/airport to be redeveloped. Surrounding lands around airfields will not suffer height restrictions allowing greater development. Environment impact issues such as noise reduction, safety from non-overflights contribute to higher land values. There are also maintenance savings as well as further cost savings eg less need for base security eg dedicated air defence/field defence squadron thus freeing up resources for reallocation. Existing airbase facilities, units and equipment can be transferred to other airfields thus increasing redundancy at other locations. Land values go up (and sometimes very quickly). There will be increased population versus space pressures.
There are negatives to removing an airfield. This reduces runway redundancy and ships may not be able to fully base all aircraft. This may require re-basing into other airfields. Airbase support personnel/industry will be affected. Like any major issue worth considering, tradeoffs are needed. A detailed cost-benefit analysis of such impacts will be required but nevertheless, this may yield significant cost savings that may offset or even exceed the cost of acquiring aircraft carriers.
- Number
Singapore operates 6-7 squadron of fighters over 3 main bases. This means each base only operates 2-3 squadron of fighters. Based on fleet status, only 40+ F-5s are due for replacement, hence the amount of future fighters to be acquired would not be that many. Whilst Singapore will definitely not rebase its entire air force, the question is whether there is scope to redevelop at least one.
It is also interesting to note that F-35Bs have very short take-off capability that enables it to utilise alternative airfields eg seletar/sembawang that were previously restricted to other combat aircraft due to the runway length. Alternatively, a separate base can be built eg Tekong, Tuas, that can be smaller and cheaper or even consider small floating runways that can be moved around. This reduces the number of aircraft that needs to be based onboard ships.
- Enhanced flight training
Ship based flights are less restricted in international waters. Pilot training and operational flights can take place in international waters with less restrictions. This reduces foreign concerns and cost (eg no need to pay for foreign basing rights).
- Leveraging on existing capability
Singapore has assets eg Formidable FFGs that are capable for use eg as fleet escort. Submarine escort is a major deficiency as SSKs often lack the speed to keep up with surface combatants. In the case of fleets such as italy, the lack of SSNs is offset by alternative measures eg ASW helicopters and ASW equipped escorts.
Space optimisation is important for aircraft carriers. The more space, the more aircraft carried and operated. In the case of semi-aircraft carriers, a large part of space is often used for amphibious support eg docking well rather than hanger space. The Endurance class LSTs already fulfil the amphibious/humanitarian support role. This allows a future alternative aircraft base to focus solely on aircraft basing.
(ii) Utility
Often, critics point out that ships carry few aircraft and that large and thus expensive aircraft carriers will be needed.
One of the greatest counter examples was the Falklands war. 28 Sea Harriers successfully defended a British fleet against 220 Argentine combat aircraft enabling the UK to retain possession of a colony several thousand miles away.
Whilst aircraft carriers are often associated with force projection, in Singapore’s case, the necessity would more likely be driven by the lack of space rather than any desire for force projection since it has no foreign interest to defend.
Tactically, it would enhance Singapore’s security by not limiting itself to the confines of its territorial waters thus increasing its potential dimension of operations.
There are a lot more factors to consider and detailed studies would be needed, if not already done, to consider the possibility. But in conclusion, whether Singapore will one day operate an aircraft carrier should no longer be considered far-fetched and enter the realm of objective analyses.
-
a very well written and thought out article.
personally i am in favor of an aircraft carrier for the SAF.
however, i feel that an aircraft carrier made of steel is gonna attract too much attention and negative "emotions" from our neighbour who is already suffering decades from conjunctivities.
may i instead propose that SAF consider a MOB (mobile offshore base) made of reinforced concrete.
such a base could be build to such a high level of sturdiness, it could be nearly indestructible from conventional weapons and can be built to any size, this allows not only of operating STOVL aircraft like F-35, but more conventional KC-135 and F-15SG as well.
the base could be parked far from singapore, out of sight and out of mind of our neighbour's leader (and rocket artillery) until they need to be reminded of it.
the size of the base could be so huge, that it could have multiple runways, a naval base together with a few battalions for security.
can we build something like that?, just check out our marina floating stage for national day, and you will realize its not really that novel a concept.
in fact, shipyards all have such floating platforms in the forms of drydocks.
and with potential huge tract of sea available to us from pedra branca, we should explore all possible alternatives as well, flats, factories, school, refineries and storage bunkers on floating platforms.
-
Can TS pls further leave a space in between paragraphs?? Thanks
The article still failed to tackle the major concern of manpower issues.
The Wasp Class requires about a crew of 1100 while the Juan Carlos needs a 900 men crew to man the ship. Already, getting the manpower to operationalise our Formidable Class proved pretty much an uphill task. Even if aircraft maintainence crew n ATC personnel are 'transferred' from land units onto the aircraft carrier, we would still need a large number of personnel onboard.
Furthermore, with the recent news that pirates are using smaller n smaller boats to carry hijacks and etc. Is it necessary for us to have such a big ship? IMO, we should have just a similar invincible class (irony, cos this would still need a 1000 men crew) or a LHD that is able to support our Fokker-50, G550 and helios. Not to mention the able to luanch UAVs and USVs also. That would be sufficient, for now ...
And, to tripwire. that preda branca area is actually pretty small, given that f up ICJ ruling. I think we had been watching too much Gundams, but i like ur idea ...
-
Japan has already built a test 1km long floating runway. Whilst in theory it can be moved, the runway is normally anchored for stabilisation. The floating platform may cost a lot more than building amphibious warships (ie $billions) and the technology is fairly immature meaning higher risk.
The complement of the Juan Carlos is not that high. Only 243 crew needed to run the ship and the remaining are air crew (standard 172 or ~400-600 for a sqn aircrew). The Juan Carlos, being an amph, can carry 900 soldiers. Its not that many people needed.
Older ships like the invincible used to require 600+. The newer cavour needs only 480+. Newer ships like the Mistral class require only 160 because like the Formidables, they leverage on automation to lower number of crew needed. The french seem to be particularly good at reducing ship crew numbers.
The excuse to get a big ship is that SG can probably gets cost savings from land base redevelopment. That is the primary driver. The justification to neighbours is that such a decision would actually be their choice. If they have not restricted SG airspace to such an extent that even training cannot be performed locally, SG cannot be blamed for developing a ship capable of conducting flight training in int'l waters. The ship also helps to mitigate for a time when SG can't gain access to foreign pilot training so SG can't be held to ransom for gaining such training rights. To further allay concenrs, the ship can be armed only with self defence A2A missiles like what Japan does.
-
bro can link more information about the floating JASDF runway ? cant seem to find much information on it on google
in any case, i doubt we can acquire an aircraft carrier without significantly upsetting the regional balance of power. plus, in order to function effectively as an redundant/backup platform, the ship has to be able to store aviation fuel, parts and munitions. we dont have any such replenishing at sea capabilities or otherwise.
plus, having a land-based airfield means reinforced concrete shelters (not that i disagree with the idea of having a carrier, i think its sound but u missed out some stuff), even in a attacking raid./bombing assuming if we were caught with our pants down, there is a likelihood that some degree of fighting capacity or some aircraft will be spared. its much easier to protect a land -based airbase.on the other hand, a carrier borne air force, will instantly become a magnet for attack plus if that one ship goes down, the entire force goes down with it. even if the aircraft can get away from the carrier in time, u still lose valuable men, equipment and munitions. no use to us if they were at the bottom of the ocean.
-
4 words..
what the hell for???
-
Singapore sure can afford one.
-
the slim 10 you've eaten is affecting your perception..
that's an aircraft carrier??
that's a floating structure which is vastly different from a carrier..
btw.. go figure the economics of it.. a carrier is basically a sitting duck if it doesn't have a whole fricken armada around it.. you think for one moment Singapore wants to get something like that even if we had money to burn??
-
Question: Where in the hell can that floating runaway be placed inside STW ???
-
Originally posted by gd4u:
Question: Where in the hell can that floating runaway be placed inside STW ???
that would be to the north east of pedra branca, where we will have at least 12 nautical miles of TW, and not to mention the EEZ that we are gonna lay our hands on.
the location of the mobile floating runway is strategically significant, as it would be next to the shipping SLOC to and from singapore.
my idea is that a massive size MOB, made of reinforced concrete would be structurally so strong, you need a nuke to take it out.
coupled with bunkering storage, fuel and ammunition, "underground depot and hangar" and a naval base plus defended by at least a brigade size army.
we could shut down an entire airbase in mainland singapore and move all the facilities and manpower to the MOB.
if we were to be more imaginative, we could have a MOB that can be separated into multiple mid size MOB for multi-location long period deployment.
-
Move an entire base offshore? That entails a lot of cost.. and servicemen won't be happy at all.
We don't need an aircraft carrier at all either
-
in fact..
such concept of floating runway is not new,
the japanese new kansai airport runway is reportedly , floating on water
measuring 4km long, you could take off a B-2 bomber from it. an F-16 fully loaded wont even need 1/4 of the runway length to take off.
floating platforms are cheaper then land reclamation.
-
Originally posted by crimson soldier:
Move an entire base offshore? That entails a lot of cost.. and servicemen won't be happy at all.
We don't need an aircraft carrier at all either
the cost would be recovered from the redevelopement of the land vacated from the air base and army base.
the PLAB alone is big enough to accomodate as many as 3 ang mo kio GRC, just think how much money that would generate from the mere sale of HDB flats only.
most of the servicemen in the air force and navy are regulars, if deployment from a stone throw away from singapore shore can led to "unhappiness", how they gonna take trainning across oceans in america, europe and australia?
-
another benefit is the use of the MOB as an emergency runway for civilian airlines in trouble. having the plane do an emergency runway from highly populated singapore is of paramount concern.
the last thing we need is a airline crashing into our money pot because we dont have an alternative flight path away from populated area.
-
Aiyo, what the hell for?
SAF got stealth frigates to report on enemy positions and send the coordinates to friendly units to destroy them.
What the SAF needs is more of those robot ships to search and destroy enemies....A stealth frigate loaded with a squad of them is more effective than an aircraft carrier....
Another thing to add: The RSAF probably needs some drones to do ACAP duties to protect the frigates from enemy aircraft.
-
last but not least, the F-15SG two giant engine, i heard the sound is quite exhilarating. of course then there is the usual occassional C-17 and C-5 making a stopover in singapore, think of the sound...
or in the ears of some, the "noise" could be rather painful?
-
Originally posted by Jianye:
Aiyo, what the hell for?
SAF got stealth frigates to report on enemy positions and send the coordinates to friendly units to destroy them.
What the SAF needs is more of those robot ships to search and destroy enemies....A stealth frigate loaded with a squad of them is more effective than an aircraft carrier....
Another thing to add: The RSAF probably needs some drones to do ACAP duties to protect the frigates from enemy aircraft.
i believe we do noticed that , the UAV is nice to have, a novel toy of sort.
but each time we seek to "enhance" the UAV capabilities, we discovered that the UAV not only becomes more expensive, its became much larger, and in some cases, the trend has led to UAV being bigger then many modern fighter plane.
the additional complexity and cost that comes with "better and more capable" UAV should eventually led to a rethink of its role and purpose in the near future.
-
Originally posted by tripwire:
in fact..
such concept of floating runway is not new,
the japanese new kansai airport runway is reportedly , floating on water
measuring 4km long, you could take off a B-2 bomber from it. an F-16 fully loaded wont even need 1/4 of the runway length to take off.
floating platforms are cheaper then land reclamation.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but KIX is not a floating platform. It's an artificial island created from land reclamation.
-
Originally posted by tripwire:
that would be to the north east of pedra branca, where we will have at least 12 nautical miles of TW, and not to mention the EEZ that we are gonna lay our hands on.
the location of the mobile floating runway is strategically significant, as it would be next to the shipping SLOC to and from singapore.
As I said, the area seems too small for it. Take note that the surrounding waters have to be gazatted to prevent boats with hostile intent for coming too close, and also giving aircraft enough space to achieve a decent climb and height.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/pedra%20branca%20map/shadow200671/seaterritory.jpg
I have googled out this map. Pls made do with it. With the ICJ ruling that the Pedra Branca is awarded to us, the other rocks is given to Malaysia, and the other one left lying to be contested again. Having this in mind, the amount of STW we can declare at Pedra Branca is small. Not the mention that area is a crowded shipping lane (which was why the lighthouse was built, i guess).
Exerting a EEZ at Pedra Branca would once again complicate the matter as the EEZ will likely overlay with Malaysia and/or Indonesia Territorial waters. Likely, as we declare an EEZ, the neighbours would follow suit and then we will have another ICJ battle .... woots ... -
Originally posted by Meia Gisborn:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but KIX is not a floating platform. It's an artificial island created from land reclamation.
the airport is an artificial island, but the airport second runway is a floating structure.
floating runway are nothing new...
the white portion in the photo above is a floating runway extension.
one of the main benefit of building a structure in concrete, is cost... its literary "dirt cheap"
-
I don't think Pedra Branca's TW is that small to make it impossible to locate a floating runway. Don't forget even after taking into account the loss of TW from the award of Middle ledge to MY, there's still sufficient airspace north and east of the island (which will enter int'l waters as well) to allow take-off and landings.
Principally, it could probably be a small class D which requires maybe like 3.5nm of airspace from runway. Still, as mentioned, I would prefer a light CV rather than a floating runway that will cost significant $.
I agree with gd that PD's TW is still unsettled to host a runway though. Interestingly enough, it already has a helo pad.
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
the slim 10 you've eaten is affecting your perception..
that's an aircraft carrier??
that's a floating structure which is vastly different from a carrier..
btw.. go figure the economics of it.. a carrier is basically a sitting duck if it doesn't have a whole fricken armada around it.. you think for one moment Singapore wants to get something like that even if we had money to burn??
The link I posted was in response to SGstar's request. If you bother to read the first post, you'd already find my response to your perception behind the economics of the idea. -
i would like to point out that concrete is far far far cheaper then steel or aluminium.
whatever you can build with steel and aluminium, the concrete can build it at a much lower cost and stronger too.
-
and i would like to point out that in the event TW between states are not settled, the midpoint between both state is taken as the demarcation line.
and since a MOB is mobile, it does not need to worry about future relocation if the need does arise.
