A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
i rather they spend the money on littoral warfare, eg, those little robot ships the RSN has...they can serve as run & gun assets...meaning, the minute enemy ships are spotted, they are deployed to a certain location and they fire off their Harpoons
when they run out of Harpoons, they can run back for more.....
What's more, with their relatively small size, detection rate is much lower....
-
whatever they spend note that singapore's army aims on the defensive, although sometimes some offensive actions is neccessary to defend. Sg has already been using some older models of unmanned vechicles for reconnaissance and has been working on improving and newer models. Yes such unmanned vichles are usually smaller to avoid detection.
-
S'pore control so little sea area, have big ships for what...............waste of money and manpower............get a couple of Blackjack bombers and even US carrier groups also will be sunk................ (oops, they're Russian so we won't buy or USA will screw us)
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
S'pore control so little sea area, have big ships for what...............waste of money and manpower............get a couple of Blackjack bombers and even US carrier groups also will be sunk................ (oops, they're Russian so we won't buy or USA will screw us)
i dun really care where i get my arms from...so long they serve to defend my country, i will take iti really like the BlackJacks....supersonic bombers....
-
Originally posted by Mr Milo:
i dun really care where i get my arms from...so long they serve to defend my country, i will take iti really like the BlackJacks....supersonic bombers....
yes, but the politicians choose to buy weapons from allies for political reasons and also to help balance any trade imbalances.............
Blackjacks not so nice looking as the US B-1 though..................
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
S'pore control so little sea area, have big ships for what...............waste of money and manpower............get a couple of Blackjack bombers and even US carrier groups also will be sunk................ (oops, they're Russian so we won't buy or USA will screw us)
really aircraft carriers are for more suited for offensive and long term fights in vase oceans. Buying one will slice our budget (initial costs and maintenance and cost to deploy it, plus training men to steer it) and becoming a white elephant eventually. -
Originally posted by kcockicht:
really aircraft carriers are for more suited for offensive and long term fights in vase oceans. Buying one will slice our budget (initial costs and maintenance and cost to deploy it, plus training men to steer it) and becoming a white elephant eventually.that's why i said earlier that S'pore if wanna buy a carrier should ask if the US still has one of those WW2-era dinosaurs mothballed somewhere.................can sell to S'pore at scrap value.............we can put those F5 ''flying coffins'' on them.................S'pore can then lord over Southeast Asia...............LOL
we can call the carrier..............Really Stupid Ship (RSS) Titanic...............LOL
LKY can then be Lord of Malacca Straits..................LOL
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
that's why i said earlier that S'pore if wanna buy a carrier should ask if the US still has one of those WW2-era dinosaurs mothballed somewhere.................can sell to S'pore at scrap value.............we can put those F5 ''flying coffins'' on them.................S'pore can then lord over Southeast Asia...............LOL
we can call the carrier..............Really Stupid Ship (RSS) Titanic...............LOL
LKY can then be Lord of Malacca Straits..................LOL
USS Enterprise was keep afloat and maintained like a floating museum by the Americans.. But they had it to commemorate the service records victories and battles Enterprise fought and went through during the pacific struggle against the Imperial Japanese fleet. We buy them for no reason. The two figures well they don't own sg tru' battles. maybe another icon will be better fit to represent them.Enterprise the last time i followed up on the information was that the people in charge were trying hard and also getting funds to mainatin the carrier even when it was already decommissioned. Its a weapon that's costly to deploy, an exhibit also costly to maintain.
-
really, the idea of sg having an aircraft carrier is talk only.....practically not feasible at all
i rather arm sg with powerful laser weaponry capable of surface to surface & surface to air operations
power generation is not an issue nor cool down of the weapons are...we are a coastal nation....we can use the seawater to cool them down
-
S'pore no need for weapons at all..............just let JP Morgan or one of the Jewish banks set up S'pore's central bank (owned by them, of course) and US will do all the defending for us................
-
"Laser weaponry capability" ?
That will require alot of electrical generating power - unless there is some kind of device that allow a small energy input to be upscaled into a potent destructive output power - that will be alot of energy wasted during a critical period of war.
Any electrical generating power will be dependent on energy resources - such as gas or oil - and with these supply being at a premium or scarce, and requiring large storage facilities - it can only make such a weapon platform to be vulnerable.
As matters stand, MINDEF will not even consider the use of modern sanitation systems that require electrical driven pumps to dispose human wastes that are accumulated from the toilets installed at bomb shelters or command posts - but will depend on human effort to carry human waste out from the deep shelters.
The civil defense shelters and command posts of Switzerland and Sweden will not allow their personnel to be exposed to danger when executing a mundane task of disposing human wastes from deep shelters.
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
S'pore no need for weapons at all..............just let JP Morgan or one of the Jewish banks set up S'pore's central bank (owned by them, of course) and US will do all the defending for us................
No need weapon?No lah i feel we still need to keep an army. What we are doing so far is oaky with me. Just need to watch the spending.
-
Originally posted by kcockicht:
No need weapon?No lah i feel we still need to keep an army. What we are doing so far is oaky with me. Just need to watch the spending.
money is the best defence...............especially when the money is from the big powers..............they'll be more anxious to defend S'pore than our very own people...................
Kuwait was the best example...............no way they could have defended themselves against Iraq..........not even if Kuwait has a much larger army and superior weapons because they're surrounded on 3 sides by Iraq plus the place is too small, run out of space to even fight...............easily overwhelmed if caught by surprise................S'pore is in the same situation.
becoz of Kuwait's oil, US and UK oil companies go to the rescue ! since all politicians are controlled by the super-wealthy............nations go to war to help the super-wealthy get more wealth or protect their wealth.........
so as long as there's a lot of foreign money and big foreign companies in S'pore.................we are as safe as can be.................to make it even safer, just let the Americans use Changi Naval Base for their carriers to replace Subic Bay................
VERY IMPORTANT FACT................S'pore is a major player in oil refining and oil trading so we're like another Kuwait.............
-
Whatever your point is i still insist we should also keep a regular army.
-
Originally posted by kcockicht:
Whatever your point is i still insist we should also keep a regular army.
yes, just so we can capture Johor and secure water and food.............that's why the SAF trains in wide open terrain..........
if just to defend S'pore, Army no need to go for jungle training just urban warfare enough liao............
no need for those long-range weapons too..............all of SAF's weapons/training are with an pre-emptive offensive against M'sia in mind.............
-
I did NOT Read the past 10 pages of threads to see if this alternative was covered...but i came across this article on suggesting alternative to carriers.....by deploying TLAM (Tomahawk Land Attack Missile)
I think there are areas not covered on the advantages of carrier....I feel that the report seemed to get between the tradditional roles of Navy vs Air. Anyway interested pls read on......
http://newwars.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/carrier-alternative-weekly-8/
Therefore, even though the cruise missile is individually more costly, here is where the battleship versus the carrier ordinance comes into play. The TLAM is more cost effective because it is less harder to deploy than naval airpower from the sea. Much of this is obvious since all nations, particularly Britain, India, China, and Russia which have attempted to deploy even one large deck aircraft carrier have faced enormous technical and funding issues. Even the supreme practitioner of the art, the US Navy struggles to keep 10-11 in service, or build adequate numbers of planes for its spacious decks.
So we contend that the TLAM is the best weapon to take advantage of the new precision warfare of one bomb or missile, assuring one hit. This doesn’t just balance the cost effectiveness of the two platforms either, but completely blows the carrier out of competition. Currently the USN has in service 130 TLAM ships–80 cruisers/destroyers and 50 submarines–positioned around the world, dramatically revealed recently with attacks on terrorist targets on Yemen by TLAM ships. Far from being as efficient as a legacy manned warplane, they don’t need to be, just effective "
-
There was a huge debate in the 80s regarding that role (ie of TLAMs) specific to the US navy. Yet today carriers are still a linchpin of US naval strategy.
The issue is a moot point for SG. MTCR bars export of any missiles exceeding 300km to SG. For missiles up to 300km, SG already has access to SLAM-ER but JSOW/JDAMs appear more cost-effective solutions.
Australia would like tomahawks too but only 1 country have received them and that is UK (in 1995). Spain got approval in 2008 but appear not to go ahead as too expensive (US$7.8m each).
In any case, TLAMs only address the strike issue but not sustainable air escort.
-
Pravda reports France and Spain fighting it out for contract. Also that Spain is leading 1-0.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/02-03-2010/112440-russia_france-0
"While the Spanish ship is better than the French one in a number of ways, France is more influential, and is trying to use its influence to obtain a profitable contract with Moscow. "
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
There was a huge debate in the 80s regarding that role (ie of TLAMs) specific to the US navy. Yet today carriers are still a linchpin of US naval strategy.
The issue is a moot point for SG. MTCR bars export of any missiles exceeding 300km to SG. For missiles up to 300km, SG already has access to SLAM-ER but JSOW/JDAMs appear more cost-effective solutions.
Australia would like tomahawks too but only 1 country have received them and that is UK (in 1995). Spain got approval in 2008 but appear not to go ahead as too expensive (US$7.8m each).
In any case, TLAMs only address the strike issue but not sustainable air escort.
how many hours does our RSAF pilot is expected to be in the Air at any given time? -
as long as he can hold his bladder..................
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
as long as he can hold his bladder..................
don't they got outlet in their flight suit. -
si meh ? cannot be lah.................i know the big planes got toilet lah...............that's why no point having fighters with very long-range..............pilot need to pee mah...............later stomachache how ?
that's why they want drones now................later leh.............warfare like in Terminator lor...........
-
how about hypersonic cruise missiles launched from submarines?
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
how many hours does our RSAF pilot is expected to be in the Air at any given time?
Good question. If the scope of ops is up to KL (~300km away). Flight time for an alpha strike at 600 kts is about 32 mins (to and fro) per sortie (add 30 minutes loiter/manouvring time).If up to gong kedak, then double that. I think most pilots should be able to hold bladder that long but when got to go..., got to go.
Won't compare air superiority missions cos am assuming the context is the comparison to TLAMs. Even for counter air, there's alert 5s which still means pilots on the ground rather than in the air.
ASW helo ops probably more cos loiter time needs to be significant for dipping sonar missions. Endurance may be up to 2.5 hours per mission.
My guess is the longest missions are the ferry missions from US to SG (and vice versa), tanker and transport.
Also, KL and gong kedak is mentioned for range comparisons only. Not saying those are targets.
Ground time in terms of mission planning, flight inspections, etc is probably significant.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Good question. If the scope of ops is up to KL (~300km away). Flight time for an alpha strike at 600 kts is about 32 mins (to and fro) per sortie (add 30 minutes loiter/manouvring time).If up to gong kedak, then double that. I think most pilots should be able to hold bladder that long but when got to go..., got to go.
Won't compare air superiority missions cos am assuming the context is the comparison to TLAMs. Even for counter air, there's alert 5s which still means pilots on the ground rather than in the air.
ASW helo ops probably more cos loiter time needs to be significant for dipping sonar missions. Endurance may be up to 2.5 hours per mission.
My guess is the longest missions are the ferry missions from US to SG (and vice versa), tanker and transport.
Also, KL and gong kedak is mentioned for range comparisons only. Not saying those are targets.
Ground time in terms of mission planning, flight inspections, etc is probably significant.
I was just thinking for air escort on the high sea...if encounter tension after a few high G maneuver of flip and turn in high altitude it will need to refuel and probably land. While the entire affair may take a few second but the pilot will need to get their blood circulating. Again I am not a pilot....so is there such a thing for measurement of "sustained turnaround" would it be realistics?
I gather it is not going to be the Battle of Britain where sleep deprivation and equipments issued.