I think if push comes to shove, sustained turnaround can be up-ped. If you look at the codeone mag article, F-16 pilots were logging 8+ hour combat air patrols.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1999/articles/oct_99/oct3_p.html
Desert storm average sortie duration: 3.24 hours.
http://www.f-16.net/varia_article3.html
Longest duration strike: 9.8 hours for 419fw's F-16.
http://www.419fw.afrc.af.mil/library/history/index.asp
USAF standard is 3 sorties per day for high tempo and 2 sorties per day for low tempo incl for F-35A. USMC requirement for F-35B was 4 and 3 but demo showed 6 demonstrable.
US wades into the fray with politician asking France to stop the mistral sale to Russia.
Looks like Russia has decided to purchase the Mistral (and build 3 more). Agreement by yr end. Cost estimated US$540-675m for the initial unit.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100421/158681963.html
i saw today mandarin newspaper there is a picture of a floating platform with control tower and helipad to monitoring against coastal piracy....
Are those statics platform or you can actually float around.....
I know is not a carrier....
me thi9nks its both,,,,...just like an oil rig.they can anchor it...and when they need to relocate...just hoist up anchors and move.
i used to know a small workshop making stuff like those oil rig platform in jurong.....lotsa pipes,metal etc etc...mainly for Bohai region in Spratley area.
you guys are stupid fucks. If singapore buys or builds an aircraft carrier, it would be OUR TAX MONEY ON THE LINE. WE are paying for it, which we don't even need.
you guys are stupid fucks. If singapore buys or builds an aircraft carrier, it would be OUR TAX MONEY ON THE LINE. WE are paying for it, which we don't even need.
and i am sure if singapore need one we can get it in 30 days.....u know from the shelf......or store.
and everything will be battle ready just like a computer game.....plug and play.
Why does Singapore "NEED" aircraft carriers again?
white elephant.
singapore need air craft jets not carrier.
S'pore can buy replicas mah like those replicas of Lambo and Ferrari, outside looks like the real thing but inside fake one !!!
we can get a kit from US to make replica carriers but actually a normal cargo ship beneath the ''skin'' !!!
we can get replica of USS Ronald Reagan and call it RSN Sang Nila Utama
then get a replica of Russian carrier and call it RSN Lee Kill You
S'pore so small, a fighter can fly from Tuas to Changi in less than 1 minute !!!!
what for get carrier ?????
the sea area we control also so small !!
even our submarines are not needed at all !!!
i read the sat paper Gate is questioning if they need 11 carriers....maybe Sg can think about getting a used carrier.....
But i still think that the united state "still needs to consider maintaining fighting a 2 front war at the same time".....
It would be nice to have a aircraft carrier for us military junkies, personally i would love to see RSN having a carrier, just for the 'sei'
but the fact is aircraft carriers have been demonstrated time again to be only for one purpose, power projection. look at USA, the "world's police" their carrier fleets are deployed for flexing their muscles internationally and for invasion, so to have a steady supply of combat aircraft at a foreign location. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, south china sea, sea of japan etc.
Look at WW2, carrier fleets were primarily used to take the fight to the enemy. For the purposes of defense which is obviously our country's policy, it is really a white elephant, even more so with the ultra quiet diesel subs proliferating the region. It would be a massive headache to be able to defend it from sub attacks. even with the USA as one of the world leaders in ASW and sub tech, the Chinese could slip a sub right in under their noses.. what's to say us?
so lets be realistic, Singapore would not be getting a carrier anytime soon, even if it was considered, i would rather we get a helicopter carrier, more practical to support our troops for casavac or insertion. and can be modified to suit operations with a the VTOL F35's in the future.
our planes with external or cft tanks + inflight refueling + air domination of the region can in a practical sense travel to the likely areas of conflict in the region, (maybe not for our neighbours down south though (touch wood) , so extremely far projection for our aircraft? hmmm useless i think. we dont NEED it.
Benefits of RSN CVL:
a) Flight Training:
No restriction on airspace for training in international waters.
b) Operational:
Tangential response. Not from fixed airfields with specific predictable ingress lines.
c) Defence:
No reliance on fixed airfields which can be attacked pre-emptively.
d) SLOC defence:
Extended sustained air coverage over SLOC. Currently only FFGs capable outside fixed airfield range.
e) Economy:
Allows land currently used as airfield to be free for re-development with economic spin off. Cost benefit analysis done previously (see previous pages).
Originally posted by Arapahoe:i read the sat paper Gate is questioning if they need 11 carriers....maybe Sg can think about getting a used carrier.....
But i still think that the united state "still needs to consider maintaining fighting a 2 front war at the same time".....
Hard choices faced by declining budget. US$14b for new Ford class CVN can buy 140+ F-35s.
2nd hand sounds good except for crew requirements (Older vessel use more manpower). Available ones may include:
HMS Invincible - to be decom
INS Vikrant - museum ship
USS Iwojima - museum ship
USS Tripoli - converted to missile launch ship
USS New Orleans - awaiting sinking as target
USS Tarawa - decom 2009
2 more Tarawa class possibly soon to be decom.
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Hard choices faced by declining budget. US$14b for new Ford class CVN can buy 140+ F-35s.2nd hand sounds good except for crew requirements (Older vessel use more manpower). Available ones may include:
HMS Invincible - to be decom
INS Vikrant - museum ship
USS Iwojima - museum ship
USS Tripoli - converted to missile launch ship
USS New Orleans - awaiting sinking as target
USS Tarawa - decom 2009
2 more Tarawa class possibly soon to be decom.
You are right Tarawa is designed to maintain a certain crew level at prolong operation at War Time.
Or maybe they can just extend the Starboard side of the LST by additional 150 meters for a decent runway.
As for crew members i wonder if our frigates crews are too small i think crew fatigue and tension will be an issued for prolong War time operation. That is to say RSN may have the tendency to have minimum crew to address our limitation but not addressing operation needs.
CVL ops may need more than just deck space. I would estimate optimisation, location of additional logistical support e.g. fuel, munitions etc as part of the requirement. Probably need a redesign.
I don't think FFG's crew is too small. The FFGs have performed regional/global exercises that last weeks. There are at least six crews for six ships. If push comes to shove, one can sacrifice MCV/PV crews, transferring them to FFG ops to maintain operational rates or rotate crews using fewer ships.
Originally posted by weasel1962:CVL ops may need more than just deck space. I would estimate optimisation, location of additional logistical support e.g. fuel, munitions etc as part of the requirement. Probably need a redesign.
I don't think FFG's crew is too small. The FFGs have performed regional/global exercises that last weeks. There are at least six crews for six ships. If push comes to shove, one can sacrifice MCV/PV crews, transferring them to FFG ops to maintain operational rates or rotate crews using fewer ships.
sorry to bust your chops but Mr. Chew is only looking at C4 upgrade to complete 3G RSN looks like that is in his watch to complete, and any crisi that comes along - Like a Korean skimmerishes.
the other thing is you got to look at the plane first before you can talk about flat top.
No probs. The purpose of the thread is merely to debunk criticism/suggestions that a CVL is outside the realm of possibility. It does not mean the RSN must necessarily require a CVL but it does not mean that the RSN will not benefit from having a CVL in the future.
C4 is critical but not the only capability add where RSN is concerned. ASW helos, UUVs, USVs, etc are just some other examples.
The Korean saga highlights the limitations of hull mounted asw capabilities (Cheonan carried a PHS-32 HMS) which will probably be studied eg in terms of fearless class PVs. The same sonar also equips a number of Indonesian vessels. Torpedo counter-measures such as decoys eg scutter/canto/contralto or hard-kill anti-torp torps eg torbuster will probably come to the fore.
A small country and Navy like the RSN will have manpower constraints on its operational capabilities. I think the prospects of CVL is unlikely until these constraints can be addressed.