Every aircraft including every version of the F-35 has its advantages and disadvantages.
The -B's range without external fuel tanks is equivalent to the F-16C's range with F-16 carrying external tanks. If the F-16's range has been sufficient in Singapore's context, then one might argue that any extra range is excess and wasted. If one looks at the map and notes the area between 500-600nm, there's not exactly a lot of targets that justifies the added range. And anything significantly more, any variant of the F-35 will need tanker support.
As the F-35A and C has to carry a lot more fuel, the aircraft is heavier in the air than the -B. At the same time, coupled with the greater engine thrust required for takeoff, the B will actually be faster in the air (TW ratio). Also, because of the take-off and landing methods, the F-35A and C actually has to expend more fuel and require more fuel reserve due to overshoot. Hence although there is an apparent higher range, the other variants may not actually utilise the extra range.
Same argument applies for payload, etc. Rather than generalise, it is better to highlight what exactly are the performance disadvantages of the F-35B.
A STOVL carrier actually has the potential to generate far better sortie rates than a conventional carrier. Accordingly, it is actually far better at fleet defence than a conventional one. I could spend a few pages highlighting this (as had been discussed on other forums). Falklands is a real example of how a small fleet of far less capable STOVL aircraft defended against a fixed wing land based air force many times its size.
I agree with some of the points in the last 2 paragraphs. There are other options. One possibility is to re-site an airbase to Tekong or Tuas using STOVL a/c which will allow a smaller airbase with a smaller runway coupled with the possibility of a ski-jump equipped endurance 160 LHD. Still might be enough to generate cost savings compared to an outright F-35A buy. The difference between an 8000 ft runway and a 2000 ft runway is 4 times less space required. The shorter take off distance allows a closer proximity to MY airspace rather than existing runways.
I have to disagree on the F-35B points. The F-35B has sacrificed range and payload to accommodate the lift fan; and while a small carrier can launch STOVL aircraft more quickly than conventional aircraft, it will not be as effective a fighter. Thrust as well is overstated because more vertical thrust is required than forward thrust, and the fan is not used in forward flight. Also, the B's range on internal fuel is 450 miles, whereas the tip of the most industrialized and populous island Java is just over 500 miles away. This is why the ultra long range Su-30 is quite popular in Asia. Adding fuel tanks and even a gun will cut useful payload further.
However, let's assume that the F-35B is sufficient for our needs. If the objective is to free up land, we only need to disperse the F-35Bs to various SAF camps, rotate them around, and buy more point defence systems like Spyder. That will be even more secure than an airbase with a runway. I will be the last to complain about that thing flying over my house!
I almost forgot, if the government wants more money, they better not redevelop the air base. It's better to do less work and sell at a high per square foot price, than provide more infrastructure and lower the land price. Who gives a rat's ass about our creature comforts anyway.
Of course if I was in charge, I would sell the base and do the above so everybody can afford a proper house. The enemy will have to bomb all my camps, and I will have more chances to shoot them down. When their bombs miss, I can say they hit civilans. Less demand for land after that too. Win win!
The rsaf does not need to have all F-35Bs. The F-35As will form the majority of the future air force eg at other air bases. Singapore does have a few air bases. Having a few F-35Bs is merely a suggestion to extend options.
The lift fan only diverts the engine thrust downwards, it doesn't generate more thrust. In flight, the engine thrust is directed rearwards not downwards. ie no diff to thrust. As more vertical thrust is needed, the engine limiter is removed for the B-variant. A thrust limiter is actually installed for both -A and -C variants.
The official combat radius of the -B is 450+ nautical miles or 833+km. A nautical mile is 1.852 km or 1.1575 miles. 450 nautical miles = 520 miles. The plus is important cos the actual demo-ed radius is ~490nm (900km).
An SDB or JSOW can be launched 110 km away from target (60+nm range). Alternatively, the JSM missile adds 250 km to the attack radius.
Alternatively, a pair of 427 gal drop tanks or air to air refuel extends the radius. If an LHD is available, then range is even less of an issue since the LHD can sail to where-ever around the high seas. Rather than an F-35A having to travel there and back over 1000nm, a LHD can reduce that distance significantly hence generating more F-35 sorties and more sustainability.
If for example, Jakarta starts to lob IRBMs at Singapore, the LHD can provide better sortie coverage eg using ncade armed F-35Bs to tackle instead of trying to maintain F-35As near there. The F-35As will require more fuel and tanker support.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Separately, France signs deal with Russia for 4 mistrals.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5534276&c=EUR&s=SEA
Thanks for the info on the F-35. Hope the Mistral deal materializes and the F-35B does not get cancelled.
IMHO a carrier doesn't move quickly enough to screen the large landmass on which the enemy has the luxury of basing their missiles. Therefore any ABM system may more likely be terminal phase and take the SM3 path like everybody else (not considering that systems and their countermeasures differ in effectiveness).Furthermore, counting the stand off range of weapons is only useful if we know far in advance where the targets are, something quite unlikely because every IRBM in service today is mobile. (Of course using the F-35 against other fixed targets and with fuel tanks is very valid.)
Btw I think if an air base is redeveloped, it probably will be PLAB. The transport aircraft might move to CAB and a replacement fighter base built offshore by enlarging the emergency runway in the southern islands. A counter-argument is we may buy more and larger transports than the C-130s, and these have to be dispersed across mainland bases. Could I ask your opinion on this- since this runway runs east-west and all the other runways in singapore run north-south, is it viable to upgrade this into a permanent base? I'm thinking yes because civilian flights will be suspended in war time.
Juan Carlos CV begins air-naval certification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_offshore_base
not sure if already posted
And what is wrong with the current system of basing fighters in other countries along with KC-tanker support? It's more taxing on the airmen on the trip back, but it totally avoids the predictablity of a carrier or a fixed air base, though I'll admit it's a one shot deal. That's probably when a carrier might come in useful, turn around time and aircraft recovery if SG is occupied, but it's going to have to be based incredibly far from the area of conflict to avoid trouble. Something like Dolittle's bomber raid on Tokyo in WW2, but return to a carrier instead of landing in China.
As for the F-35, yes, it translates to greater range, which we may not need, but also increased loitering time waiting for targets or longer interdiction missions, air and land. But to be honest, the -35 project doesn't look like it's going anywhere fast. Unless it's a bin. The US even has problems maintaining it's current airfleet, especially with the shuttering of the F-22 lines and B-2 lines, a new aircraft is going to be a really hard sell in their current economy.
One concept that might be worth resurrecting for Singapore might be the arsenal ship concept, the US canned it as it was redundent with CVBGs, but in essence, it was a semi-submersable cruiser sized ship carrying a large stock of Tomahawk SLGMs for bombardment. It can stand in for an airstrike in a pinch, and it's submersable nature might give it better survivability than a carrier, not being the target of every AShM in the region. That is assuming manpower can be squeezed out somehow. Maybe trade the Tomahawk with HIMLAR launch cells? And yes, it's almost like a ballistic sub in concept. I forsee a very happy Malaysia/Indonesia. Not.
But enough of politics, feasibility comments beyond politics?
i think planner should look beyond carrier.....but focus on unmanned....
Originally posted by Underpaid:And what is wrong with the current system of basing fighters in other countries along with KC-tanker support? It's more taxing on the airmen on the trip back, but it totally avoids the predictablity of a carrier or a fixed air base, though I'll admit it's a one shot deal. That's probably when a carrier might come in useful, turn around time and aircraft recovery if SG is occupied, but it's going to have to be based incredibly far from the area of conflict to avoid trouble. Something like Dolittle's bomber raid on Tokyo in WW2, but return to a carrier instead of landing in China.
As for the F-35, yes, it translates to greater range, which we may not need, but also increased loitering time waiting for targets or longer interdiction missions, air and land. But to be honest, the -35 project doesn't look like it's going anywhere fast. Unless it's a bin. The US even has problems maintaining it's current airfleet, especially with the shuttering of the F-22 lines and B-2 lines, a new aircraft is going to be a really hard sell in their current economy.
One concept that might be worth resurrecting for Singapore might be the arsenal ship concept, the US canned it as it was redundent with CVBGs, but in essence, it was a semi-submersable cruiser sized ship carrying a large stock of Tomahawk SLGMs for bombardment. It can stand in for an airstrike in a pinch, and it's submersable nature might give it better survivability than a carrier, not being the target of every AShM in the region. That is assuming manpower can be squeezed out somehow. Maybe trade the Tomahawk with HIMLAR launch cells? And yes, it's almost like a ballistic sub in concept. I forsee a very happy Malaysia/Indonesia. Not.
But enough of politics, feasibility comments beyond politics?
First of all, the arsenal ship was never semi-submersible. It was a surface ship, and there are separately 3 SSBN to SSGN conversions. Secondly, semi-submersibles are no more survivable. If the US can find drug-running submersibles with basic SAR equipped aircraft, what more a full sized ship, or the Chinese with satellites that can see the wakes of real submarines. Third, putting GLMRS on board is massively inefficient but no less provocative. The ship will have no stand-off capability and will only find a role in the relative safety of an amphibious assault.
alize, think you were thinking of the de-nuclerization of subs, SSBN -> SSGN, as far as I recall no arsenal ship was ever created, and I remember the original design was intended to be submersible under the SC-21 program. It was in some old publication of the Straits Times too. It was also the crew requirement that caught my eye, 50 crew. But this was in the 1990s, as I already said, it got nowhere due the the fact a CVBG could do the same job and more besides.
As for detection, yes, MPA aircraft and sat detection will detect it. Question is, what WEAPON are you going to use against it? Wave riding radar guided AShMs and most long range stuff you can avoid by submerging and cutting your radar return, leaving only close range torpedos from subs or planes. And the difference between drug runners and a navy on war footing is that drug runners don't have SAMs, making it risky to close in for aircraft.
In fact, I'd say the biggest threat to the ship would be subs, which are way more efficient underwater, and ASTROCs which combine the long range of a rocket and the sonar to track the ship underwater. Of course, if you were expecting an invincible "God" ship, you're NOT going to get one, but I see the ability to totally avoid AShMs like Harpoons or Sunburns as one that can improve the survivability of the ship.
And my apologies on the HIMAR launch pod, I wasn't specific enough, I don't mean the XM31 pod, I was thinking of the ATACMS pod, the one where they were trying to get to fire the AIM-120. If they can get it working and intergrated on a ship, you'd get a tactical missile system that can act as an air defence system too. But tricky, tricky, not even sure if THAT program is going to work. Or would a SYLVER system like the one our frigates are currently using, but upsized to fit the Tomahawk be better? Think DCNS says that their SYLVER 70 can use Tomahawks as opposed to our SYLVAR 50s. This would give any new ship both anti-ship/land and anti-air capabilities, a worthwhile goal, provided you didn't have to end up doing both jobs at once.
Underpaid, yes I was saying the closest thing are the SSGN conversions. I think the choice of defence systems isn't that important, since the ship will never go without an escort. But I doubt if survivability improves by the ship being submersible, since modern missiles can probably be reprogrammed toattack anything that can be sensed by themselves or other sensors.
Why the choice of Sylver for the VLS system?. If you want the ship to carry cruise missiles, area defence SAMs and maybe ABMs like the Standard missile family, the straightforward choice is the Mk-41.
Btw, do you know if our frigates are using Sylver 43 or 50 as their VLS?
As an aside, I can't wait for singapore to get cruise missiles, cos we often must wait for our neighbours to have or plan to have new capabilities before we get them. We get a few air or sea launched cruise missiles because they're getting some ballistic or cruise missiles or at least long range MLRS and from much cheaper Russian and Chinese sources. Life would be so interesting.
The Thai military at least are officially stating that RSN frigates are armed with A-43 launcher + Aster 15s. This is consistent with prior DCNS press releases.
Singapore has a sea launched cruise missile and its called the harpoon. Harpoon blk IIs have land-attack capability and this was introduced in 1998 allowing cheap retrofit options. Considering that Formidables entered service in 2008 (and launched in 2004 onwards), it can be presumed that all harpoons procured for the Formidables are all Blk IIs. The Blk IIs have a range in excess of 124km.
For air launched capability, the most recent entry for RSAF is the JSOW which has a range in excess of 111km.
"But I doubt if survivability improves by the ship being submersible, since modern missiles can probably be reprogrammed toattack anything that can be sensed by themselves or other sensors."
That's the key. Their main sensors are radar, submerging cuts off radar. Have you ever heard of Harpoons attacking submarines? And most missiles do not come with satelite uplink.
And SYLVER and the Mk-41 are more or less the same thing, a square box where a missile sits in, though the SYLVER is cold launch, a plus in my opinion, I always get antsy thinking of excess heat melting the surrounding area in a mass launch for hot launchers, or possible cook-offs. Just one is American, the other is French. And we have experience with the SYLVER 50 (yes, we use the 50, and Astor 30s), not to mention parts commonality, which was why I suggested AIM-120 or Astors for parts/supply commonality. Though the 120 is hot launch. We do not have much experience with the Block 4 missiles.
And weasel's right on the Harpoons, it was the price tag that made me lean to Tomahawks. If you're going to put 100+ cruise missiles on a ship, it's going to get expensive. And Tomahawks are going at 2 for 1 Harpoon.
Or we can just go "bugger it" and get a ballistic sub. :P
Edit: I just did some checking, the SYLVER 50 IS big enough to fit a Harpoon, but not a Tomahawk. Wonder if it can launch the Harpoon as well? That would give our frigates a lot of flexibility.
We have our own division on whether Sylver 43 or 50 right here. My two cents is given the military rationale to be future-proof and cost effective, and since we expect more out of our frigates than other Lafayette class operators, we probably have the A-50 and maybe the Aster 30 and we have no reason to admit it.
Harpoons are not yet made in VLS versions, though Boeing is thinking about it.
Since this discussion is straying, no harm me saying that maybe getting a destroyer with some VLS cells is "enough", whatever that means.
I believe the submersible target challenge will be easily solved by missile designers once such a ship is contemplated.
do u think spore can afford it, given how much is it to maintain and repair and keep it in operation, not to mention the costs of fuel and other costs to factor in.
Originally posted by Rooney9:do u think spore can afford it, given how much is it to maintain and repair and keep it in operation, not to mention the costs of fuel and other costs to factor in.
Defence budget #1. Army First politics is the best politics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The captain and the command center personnel and the gunners will be Singaporean NS men. All essential combat related duties will be done by Singaporean men and women.
The Banglas will do area cleaning, PRCs the the kitchen and mess hall duties, and the Indians the barber and man the shops, and the Filipinos the medical centre.
An aircraft carrier is like a small town.
Originally posted by mancha:The captain and the command center personnel and the gunners will be Singaporean NS men. All essential combat related duties will be done by Singaporean men and women.
The Banglas will do area cleaning, PRCs the the kitchen and mess hall duties, and the Indians the barber and man the shops, and the Filipinos the medical centre.
An aircraft carrier is like a small town.
The banglas will be lifting the torpedos into the tubes.
They will cordon off the VLS and direct traffic when the missiles come roaring out of the flight deck.
They will take over from the cat officer when the Chief Of Navy has gone home.
The NSFs... NSF enlistees will be deployed to escort the banglas on a 1:1 basis.
Foreign worker levy has increased with new PIC credit. Automation is encouraged. Fewer banglas with go/stop signs. More traffic lights.
Seriously, $25k GBU-38 JDAM vs $50k GBU-54 LJDAM vs $350k JSOW vs $3.7m Harpoon Blk II (based on Taiwan contract) or $7.8m Tomahawks (based on Spanish contract). Tomahawks barred under MTCR so forget about it.
1 Harpoon hitting 1 target = 148 JDAMs hitting 148 targets. Forget about arsenal ship. Singapore won't be fighting anyone outside the reach of the F-15SGs (12-15 JDAMs each) anytime soon. And that's already a pretty long reach.
A CVE has a different role.
Agree with weasel on the JDAMs with one exception. Air defence sites. Don't send a pilot (especially an expensive one :P ) where you can send a Tomahawk/Harpoon when it comes to air defences. People won't cry if the Tomahawk gets shot down. The pilot's family will if he does. So I'd say we can use it as a 1st strike to beat down air defences, then have the F-15s (actually the F-16s) work on the rest in relative safety. Or worse case, mass launch + sortie, force the enemy to split their fire and save some lives. But as I said, worse case scenario.
CVE wasn't specified, just CV, and the strike role is part of the CV's mandate. But carriers are really a non-issue. Singapore doesn't have ANY carrier capable aircraft. At least until the F-35. Maybe.
CVE wasn't specified, just CV, and the strike role is part of the CV's mandate. But carriers are really a non-issue. Singapore doesn't have ANY carrier capable aircraft. At least until the F-35. Maybe.
He's been talking about a CVE because it is affordable enough to generate cost savings from closing down a full size air base, and replacing it with a STOVL carrier and a new base with a short runway.
Actually, the conclusion from the US CVA program was exactly the opposite, a CVE costs almost the same to operate as a CV or CVA, especially the nuclear kind, hence the drive to larger and larger carriers. After all, if operating cost is the same, why not build it larger?
And I think there is a misunderstanding between startup cost and operating cost. Startup cost, yes, the CV may be less expensive, but in maintainance? No. You don't need to fuel your airbase to stop it drifting, power systems is the PUB's problem, same with water, troop rotations need not be airflown out, hulls need to be barnacled, hell, you don't really even need large personel quarters or PX, just give the staff office hours and you can kiss your housing problems goodbye. PX? Can't beat Macdonalds. :P
So, yes, think it saves on startup, but long term, it loses.
Not to mention, what plane are we going to embark on the carrier?
That plan might actually save money if we redevelop an area the size of PLAB. Eg if we keep housing demand high, selling PLAB as residential land will surely give us more than $50bn to buy the carrier and the escorts. More immigrants to tax too.
Btw the bangla thing, if you've dealt with banglas before, its like dealing with ANSF.
how many sailors and pilots you need in an air craft carrier?
how many tonnes of oil the aircraft carrier needed also.