A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
Actually, I've mentioned this somewhere else. The ASBM's trajectory will be very different from the usual DF-21's trajectory unless they are planning to use nuclear tipped DF-21s to target American carrier battlegroups.
-
SG island itself is effectively an aircraft carrier. An unsinkable one - the best kind. Sure it's not mobile but in SG's case strategic force projection isn't really 'necessary'.
IMO, our military budget would be far better spent investing in a kickbutt air force and a competent surface fleet and nothing is getting through to us :)
Of course we need a good army too but since this is a CV thread after all lol...
-
Originally posted by Konev:
SG island itself is effectively an aircraft carrier. An unsinkable one - the best kind. Sure it's not mobile but in SG's case strategic force projection isn't really 'necessary'.
IMO, our military budget would be far better spent investing in a kickbutt air force and a competent surface fleet and nothing is getting through to us :)
Of course we need a good army too but since this is a CV thread after all lol...
absolutely right, Singapore is a big big aircraft carrier, strategically anchored to control the sea lane from indian ocean to south china sea. Spend our budget wisely to strengthen the hardware and software on the carrier to defend the carrier.
No need force projection.
-
Back to page 1. To reiterate the concept of RSN light carriers are based on: (i) for SLOC defence SG's sea routes are far beyond land-based air cover. (ii) for flight training in international waters instead of relying on overseas bases and limited SG air space. (iii) alternative basing ie swap a land base for a sea one. SG land very ex and an air base takes up a lot of space. It may actually be cheaper to operate a few CVLs than a land base. (iv) security Land based air bases are vulnerable to ground suppression eg rockets etc. Sea bases increase operational vectors and are less vulnerable due to mobility.
-
The number of escort vessels required per carrier has received some attention due to recent debates over UK CVF cut-backs.
Apparently to support 2 CVFs (4 sqns), the royal navy may have to compromise with only 17 escort vessels (6 Type 45 destroyers with Aster 30 and 11 Type 23 frigates with sea wolfs).
-
he Giant UK cannot afford aircrafts on the new CV. The Cv will be sold after
3 years in service. have u guys reda news in the past few days?
2. Why do u think SG shall pretend have a big head,wearing a big hat?
3. Besides CV, u need few ships and one sub to protect CV.
Is it suitable for SG, a country with defensive position?
unlike Yankees, acting as a policeman, he needs proactive long strike
force, like CV Battle group etc.
4. i think SG shall not adopt CV group model for long strike or deterrence.
Aeroplanes, or SOF penetration(by RSAF or sub etc )is better and cost effective
for long strike. I think few more sub can post a higher threats than a CV group.
Enemy can detect CV group, but not sub!
5. EVERY CV, is not properly protected, is ONLY a potentail giant floating coffin!
google search uk carrier + no aircraft
-
No need CV class type of carrier, think there are already plans for the new "Endurance 160" LHD design in the making. That is the logical enhancement to the current 4 "Endurance 140" LPD in service.
-
An Endurance 180 could fulfil the basic requirements of a CVL. A Endurance 160 would not.
However, an Endurance 160 could serve as a de-facto helo carrier.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
he Giant UK cannot afford aircrafts on the new CV. The Cv will be sold after
3 years in service. have u guys reda news in the past few days?
2. Why do u think SG shall pretend have a big head,wearing a big hat?
3. Besides CV, u need few ships and one sub to protect CV.
Is it suitable for SG, a country with defensive position?
unlike Yankees, acting as a policeman, he needs proactive long strike
force, like CV Battle group etc.
4. i think SG shall not adopt CV group model for long strike or deterrence.
Aeroplanes, or SOF penetration(by RSAF or sub etc )is better and cost effective
for long strike. I think few more sub can post a higher threats than a CV group.
Enemy can detect CV group, but not sub!
5. EVERY CV, is not properly protected, is ONLY a potentail giant floating coffin!
google search uk carrier + no aircraft
The British aircraft carrier project is tied with the F-35. They for various reasons felt that a STOVL design is the way to go. The cost of F-35B came along and blew all plans to bits. Last I read they have decided to go with a F-35C (Carrier Version) design. How does that fit in the overall carrier plans is any one guess.
The affordability of the carriers is affected by the British economy and the desire to keep the carrier locally made.
Quite frankly I don't see how can even afford a single carrier in the first place.
The LHD class? IMHO, we can turn this on very quickly. Just buy more navalised helicopters (with folding blades). Or just make it outsize enought to take a current model SP in.
-
I do not see the need for a CV/CVL cause that will never be the main intention. However a full deck micro LHD fit the need of a credible flanking force when time come.
3 such vessel will be good enough to project a credible brigade size combined forces with ample close air support (helo lift). No need to have expansive fighter escort as a credible regional defence can be achive with fix and mobile air defence network unit.
-
400 complement per Endurance 160 LHD isn't going to provide brigade strength landings. And in any case, who does Singapore want to amphibiously invade or flank?
There's already a lot of landing craft in inventory capable of conducting coastal hooks up to 100-200km offshore.
Beyond that, sustained air cover becomes an issue.
-
HMS Invincible has been put up for auction by 5 Jan 2011 (without engines , propeller, unworkable electricals and no firefighting eqmt) with a min ~GBP 3m bank guarantee.
Sales decision should be within 3 months thereafter as that is the bid validity period.
UK Parliament Hansard indicated that annual operating costs of other similar class CVS was between GBP 60m to 80m.
-
WE all better pray LHL don't get a carrier to impress his Jewish masters.............
can you imagine how much more taxes will be levied on us ????
already the entire Navy is a total waste of money...................
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
WE all better pray LHL don't get a carrier to impress his Jewish masters.............
can you imagine how much more taxes will be levied on us ????
already the entire Navy is a total waste of money...................
Didn't know Americans were Jewish... Last I heard, half of America still think Obama is muslim with a forged birth cert which makes us kow-towing to perceived Muslim masters.But seriously, it is strange one can't see the benefit of having subs and frigates to protect SLOCs for a country that started as a port.
Every neighbouring country ranging from Indonesia, Malaysia, China, India etc has been bolstering those same capabilities.
A locally built vessel (carrier included) contributes jobs & taxes (17% corporate tax and up to 20% employee income taxes). The Spanish, French and Koreans use their Juan Carlos, Mistrals and Dokdos as showcases for selling their wares. It is difficult to sell your own products when one hasn't even built it. If Singapore had not operated its own bronco attcs, it would not have been able to sell those to Britain.
How carriers in the Singapore context can actually reduce military budgets is highlighted from page 1. Perhaps you should read it.
-
Better late than never. China plans to have 5 aircraft carriers.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
I dunt like SG CV. This does not fit SG stragety. But i am please to tell u
SG is building a mega shipyards which can be used to build four CV simultaneously !
http://www.chec.bj.cn/zg/tabid/478/Default.aspx
google translation
The project contract amount is approximately 320 million U.S. dollars, duration 42 months.
Works include: First,built 350m x 66m x 13.2m x 3 docks . Construction of 360m x 89m x 13.2m x 1 dock.
Second, the length of the construction of three 318m x 25m jetty, a total length of 954m (including berthing pier structure).
Three of the embankment construction of two terminals and the total length of 688m total length of 1710m in 4 Wharf.
############
propsed Tuas Intergrated Mega shipyard--Phrase 1
http://www.sembcorpmarine.com.sg/index.php?page=Tuas#main
mm
Lionnoisy, I fully agree with you.
You in fact forgot to mention, that if singapore weapons are as good as you say, there is no need for a carrier at all. There is no need for foreign weapons either.
Our army is all-victorious! By our nation itself we will resolutely smash any foolish aggressors, with the unrivalled on-the-spot guidance of our leaders and our specialists!
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Better late than never. China plans to have 5 aircraft carriers.
would it be reasonable to make this observation that if RSN were to BTO an aircraft carrier. MY and Indo would have 1 carrier each. That means there would be 3 carriers sailing out from S.E.A.
-
Mathematically, it would be 4 cos the Thais already have a CV.
-
If our big neighbour wants to attack us, they will wait until they get their act together.
Their economy only has to be moderately strong, and they won't need a very good military, just a big one like Iran's, Iraq's or China's. It doesn't have to be a balanced force with all the conventional capabilities. They will outspend us, the same way Taiwan is being outspent by China and Pakistan is being outspent by India.
Therefore as useful as a carrier is, it won't help us much. Only reason they haven't tried, is their country has not been hostile and prosperous at the same time.
-
Indonesia & Malaysia's GDP is already 4 times that of Singapore.
A carrier may not be about attacking anyone but about rebasing aircraft from valuable land bases thus saving cost.
-
We might consider a carrier potentially weakens the defensive posture in a number of ways:
buying lower performance aircraft (for STOVL carriers), diversion of air power and naval power from other needs to defend the carrier, non-readiness during availabilities and refit periods, carrier for prestige reasons is a priority object of defence (which may make the carrier become a net consumer of security).
-
Besides, I'm not sure the government cares so much about freeing up land for the people.
They will make us sleep in carrier-style bedrooms before they buy a carrier. :D
-
Land sales = more govt revenue = more bonus for ministers. You think not interested?
The F-35B is not a lower performance aircraft. It is designed for higher sortie rates + higher TW ratio (due to more powerful engine). The take off weight equal to that of the F-35A and therefore its performance in the air is likely to be similar or better (due to more powerful engine).
Airfields already divert valuable resources to defend. Ever heard of field defence sqn, air defense sqn, iron dome etc? Its a large fixed target that requires constant maintenance, hardening, security etc. Roads need to be swept and repaved at regular intervals and its far larger than required to provide redundancy.
A possible rationale for an SG carrier and how it works is already illustrated from the first post on page 1. No point repeating.
-
True that the F-35 is higher performance than current aircraft, but the B version especially will be lower performance than its peers of the same generation. It will be very useful for expeditionary warfare but not enough for fleet air defence that the carrier will need.
I've been through the many good reasons on page one but I'm just saying that if the aircraft has a range and performance handicap, then it's not such a useful weapon anymore, and creates needs of its own.
For the advantages you said an airbase has, it will make a huge security difference to lose one, but I'm sure it makes good financial sense. Even if a small carrier takes only 2 squadrons and we need at least 2 for refit coverage, the cost gets pushed into the defence budget which is limitless and spread over many years, and every body gets to redevelop things and stick a feather in their cap.
Back to seriousness, I'm not trying to discount you but if it's a small carrier it's not a substitute for an airbase, won't play much or a role or even be survivable itself, if it's a big carrier it rocks but it doesn't save money, and again we will need 2.