A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
alise, that is exactly what I meant by mixing startup cost and maintanence. You get the money back up front by selling/developing the land, but later it all gets sucked back into maintanence for the carrier.
From wiki.
"Each will continue operating at full capacity until that time when they will be decomissioned. This process will first take place on Nimitz and is estimated to cost from US$750 to $900 million. This compares with an estimate of US$53 million for a conventionally powered carrier.
53 Million just to scrap it later on.
-
I can't say for sure ifthe carrier will save money or not, but as a as a politician I wouldn't really care. Ref my old posts,
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 (air base) and stick a feather in their cap.
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.
For all I know, the carrier may be a net consumer of security and not a provider.
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
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
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?
The later CVL/CVEs eg Juan Carlos have much lower operating cost due to lower manpower and higher mechanisation.
243 complement vs 5,000 for a nimitz class. Won't be the same operating cost or construction cost.
Ship fuel could be ~1,000 tonnes per operational full day at sea ~ 3 times FFGs.
There are benchmarks on CVL maintenance. UK ark royal & illustrious cost S$125-175m to maintain annually. But that's with 700 crew and that could account for 1/3 of the maintenance cost.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldhansrd/vo050124/text/50124w03.htm
Long term wise, it doesn't lose as the airbase land generates revenue from property taxes, DC charges, rentals etc. That will be far more than the above maintenance cost.
Agree with the comments regarding benefits of airbase. But there's cost savings also. No security guards/field defense sqn (shared security with current port premise), etc and other operational aspect as discussed in earlier thread.
However, the issue of staff rotation is similar. Just going to port rather than airbase. The ship doesn't sail 24/7. When CV is in port, aircraft bases with remaining airbase. When ship at sea, its like overseas exercise.
-
side questions for Weasel;
You mentioned the Formidable class' complement is 71 (excluding air crew) a few posts back, not far from the official figure of 68. Do you know what mods were done to bring down the crew numbers, given other La Fayette class ships have a complement of 164? And how many shifts are there on board?
-
Originally posted by alize:
side questions for Weasel;
You mentioned the Formidable class' complement is 71 (excluding air crew) a few posts back, not far from the official figure of 68. Do you know what mods were done to bring down the crew numbers, given other La Fayette class ships have a complement of 164? And how many shifts are there on board?
I got the 71 figure from Mindef so I presume that's also official.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/weapons/frigate/capabilities.aspA lot of the reason is due to workflow process improvement ie multi-tasking and automation. One example of lower number is bridge personnel (normally 7 now 4) using the integrated bridge system. Example of automation eg LTARs automatic deployment of sonar.
Described here:
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/cyberpioneer/features/2005/sep05_fs.html
Interesting links to show its not exactly a SG only exercise.
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public/PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-102/MP-102-11.pdf
-
Alongside the new procedures did we also cut the number of shifts for certain roles, and does the ship need more crew in war time? With 68 out of164 the ship is sailing with half of its design crew. When the CG-47 was upgraded, they only cut 40 crew out of over 350, mostly traditional roles like lookouts and backup helmsmen that were outdated. Seems incredible that DCN designed a ship from the ground up without realising they had too many men aboard.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Alongside the new procedures did we also cut the number of shifts for certain roles, and does the ship need more crew in war time?
With 68 out of164 the ship is sailing with half of its design crew. When the CG-47 was upgraded, they only cut 40 crew out of over 350, mostly traditional roles like lookouts and backup helmsmen that were outdated.
Seems incredible that DCN designed a ship from the ground up without realising they had too many men aboard.
Won't go beyond anything official.http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2011/mar/02mar11_nr3/02mar11_speech.html
There is a hint in the above.
Quote: Our Formidable-class frigates are a good example of how we have been able to operate a capability with fewer people. It has a crew half of what many other navies need to operate a similar class of ship. And now other navies, including the US Navy, are beginning to operate ships of this size and class with similar sizes of crew that we are now operating.
xxxxxxxxxxx
He is presumably referring to the LCS which has a crew of 75 (including mission crew).
-
If you go beyond anything official, it's just a guess. No harm in pure speculation.
HIMARS crews train in US, where do Spyder crews train? It's common sense. :)
F-35A production model first fight last week.
http://www.defencetalk.com/lockheed-martin-flies-first-production-f-35-stealth-fighter-32427/
-
Then our Igla crews train in.....
Milan crews?..
Not all things are linear like that. :P
As for the -35, I'll believe in it when the 1st sale is made. Won't be the 1st time an international project got shitcanned, the M-60 tank comes to mind.
As for the carrier, it's pretty much a no brainer. Singapore is NOT going to get one, especially if they have to buy a whole air-wing of carrier based fighters just to stock it too. And I hesitate to think how it'll handle in the Straits of Malacca.
-
Want also nowhere to park. We got less territorial water than we have land man.
-
Well... we can always park it on land...
Which coupon should it use I wonder? :P
And I can even predict the next objection: Changi Naval Base can park, but if you do,
1) it's permanant parking, and most of the docking space would be filled up.
2) A carrier in port = big target.
Another bad point about a carrier is it ties up our naval assets in a fixed escort role. Without a carrier, our navy can break into small detachments for dispersal and raiding, but a carrier needs escort ships in fixed formation around it, killing the ability of the frigates to operate independently.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Then our Igla crews train in.....
Milan crews?..
Not all things are linear like that. :P
As for the -35, I'll believe in it when the 1st sale is made. Won't be the 1st time an international project got shitcanned, the M-60 tank comes to mind.
As for the carrier, it's pretty much a no brainer. Singapore is NOT going to get one, especially if they have to buy a whole air-wing of carrier based fighters just to stock it too. And I hesitate to think how it'll handle in the Straits of Malacca.
Somebody has to train the trainer right? Just saying we can use inference or guesswork even if its not actual or official.
Tell me the story of the M-60- as far as I know it was developed domestically from the M-48 and widely exported. I'm inferring you mean MBT 70.
-
What will they name the carrier? I'm thinking something big like RSS Singapore. Or they might name it after someone.
Then again maybe not, cos it look will small when it takes part in exercises. It will play into the old joke "the further you go from singapre, the smaller you become."
-
My bad, you were right, MBT 70, I was thinking of it's grandpa.
-
As long as we have the US marines here, we do not need one.
-
There are no US marines based in Singapore.
-
+1. There are NO American military personnel permanantly based in Singapore. Some might visit, but that is temporary, not a duty station. LKY was very firm about this for 1) Muslim tension between our neighbours and 2) Self-defence, not relying on other countries to defend Singapore.
-
There is a detachment of 715 AMOG (det 3) at Paya Lebar airbase. Its to facilitate movement of personnel to & from Diego Garcia.
SG supplies Diego Garcia and keeps it running (DGAR shuttle). Medical support is provided at a certain hospital in Orchard Road. There are flights from DG to SG and vice versa (only military flight).
-
Marines: maybe only the Marine Security Guard, US Embassy.
-
Brainfart, please replace "military" in previous post as "combat". What a difference a wrong wordchoice makes. :)
BTW, don't think the US Embassy guards are Marines any more, I pass by there every day, and security looks like local jagas. Maybe because of low risk here?
-
Originally posted by alize:
Marines: maybe only the Marine Security Guard, US Embassy.
You may be right. All post one comms are handled by the Marine Security Guard esp in event of emergency. Comms sec won't be handled by local jagas. -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Want also nowhere to park. We got less territorial water than we have land man.
park it in Australia or NZ?
-
Go to google maps and you can see 1 big nimitz class carrier parked at CNB.
There's more than enough room to park several carriers if required.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
+1. There are NO American military personnel permanantly based in Singapore. Some might visit, but that is temporary, not a duty station. LKY was very firm about this for 1) Muslim tension between our neighbours and 2) Self-defence, not relying on other countries to defend Singapore.
I think you forgot to tell the 497th Combat Training Squadron in Paya Lebar airbase !!! that they are not suppose to place there !!!
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Brainfart, please replace "military" in previous post as "combat". What a difference a wrong wordchoice makes. :)
BTW, don't think the US Embassy guards are Marines any more, I pass by there every day, and security looks like local jagas. Maybe because of low risk here?
Underpaid - the outside perimeter is local security - which is to stop people like Chee , who may decide to protest !!!The US security take care of the inside permeter - The singapore embassy is based on a new design which give the false impression of open concept, but a press of a button, it can turn into a fortress.