A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
CVNs congregating near Iran?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/iran-aircraft-carriers/
Lincoln was in Thailand recently and would likely transit via Singapore waters westwards.
-
GL to them, it's a bad place for a carrier battle, Iran's coast. Very narrow. And I hope they brought enough firepower, they'd need both the USAF and the USN to safely tackle Iran. BTW, IT'S ALIVE!! IT'S ALIVE!!!... Bwahahaha!!! Gravedigging? :P
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
CVNs congregating near Iran?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/iran-aircraft-carriers/
Lincoln was in Thailand recently and would likely transit via Singapore waters westwards.
Just curious, what was the missile you fired in Taiwan last time?
-
Don't think RSN have the manpower to man even a single aircraft carrier even if we put the top brass right down to the ratings to operate the carrier.So save it.
-
Originally posted by RalliartTurbo:
Don't think RSN have the manpower to man even a single aircraft carrier even if we put the top brass right down to the ratings to operate the carrier.So save it.
Depends on the size of a carrier. Most laymen associate carriers with Nimitz sized carriers. For smaller carriers eg Juan Carlos, the manpower requirements are significantly lower eg 200-400.That's achieveable plus many may rather serve onboard a carrier than other naval vessels.
-
LPDs with a primary amphibious role can also carry a small STOVL fighter complement.
-
True to manpower and amphibious carriers, but still brings us back to the question of why. The purpose of carriers always have been power projection, but even power projection is useless without the ability to put boots on the ground, and the original premise, that it frees land for sale is just that, a premise, all the figures quotes are not estimates, not even guessimates, but even lower, W.A.Guessimates, noted by the nice round easily remembered, even more easily thrown off the tongue figures. My suspicions are the exact opposite, carriers may be more costly, have a shorter lifespan and much harder to upgrade/expand, not to mention greater vulnerability, liability and lesser flexibility. Only possibility I can see of usefulness is setting up an anti-piracy zone, but even here, a helo carrying LST does the job, with more loiter time and less expenditure.
-
I agree! I have always believed the true end to piracy is through amphibious forces!
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
True to manpower and amphibious carriers, but still brings us back to the question of why. The purpose of carriers always have been power projection, but even power projection is useless without the ability to put boots on the ground, and the original premise, that it frees land for sale is just that, a premise, all the figures quotes are not estimates, not even guessimates, but even lower, W.A.Guessimates, noted by the nice round easily remembered, even more easily thrown off the tongue figures.
My suspicions are the exact opposite, carriers may be more costly, have a shorter lifespan and much harder to upgrade/expand, not to mention greater vulnerability, liability and lesser flexibility.
Only possibility I can see of usefulness is setting up an anti-piracy zone, but even here, a helo carrying LST does the job, with more loiter time and less expenditure.
The land figures are approximately right (published figures exist for PLAB land area) + sales figures are based on actual Singapore sales prices in URA/JTC websites etc. Real figures not imagined ones.
Carrier maintenance numbers have been reported e.g. UK Hansard. That provides a reasonable basis for estimates.
Carriers do have limited lifespan. But so do airfields. Runways+buildings etc need regular maintenance. Expanding an airfield in land-limited Singapore is not as easy as one thinks. TAB did manage that in the 60s by taking away golf courses surrounding. Land relocation for surrounding areas is not as easy as one thinks as no more golf courses to relocate.
Vulnerability, liability and flexbility are relative terms. A carrier will extend SLOC defence beyond the range of land-based fighters including sustainability. That means SG SLOC are less vulnerable compared to only frigates for protection right now. Liability is a question of cost. Trying to whack a carrier at sea is far more difficult than trying to whack a landbase (fixed location).
A carrier is far more flexible operational e.g. training areas, vectoring strikes, far off strikes, no refuel required.
-
Well, try this liability on for size. Carriers can only operate planes designed for carrier ops, so no F-15, no F-5, no F-16 only the 'proposed" F-35. Airfields don't give a damn if the plane's designed for a carrier. :P Not to mention airfields are also cargo transshipment points. Hard to land a C-130 on a carrier.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Well, try this liability on for size. Carriers can only operate planes designed for carrier ops, so no F-15, no F-5, no F-16 only the ‘proposed” F-35.
Airfields don’t give a damn if the plane’s designed for a carrier.
Not to mention airfields are also cargo transshipment points. Hard to land a C-130 on a carrier.
Agreed, can't change the past but if SG is going to buy some F-35s, then why not consider basing options for those future F-35s.As mentioned in past threads, no one is proposing to base the ENTIRE rsaf in carriers. Having carriers does not mean no more airfields. Vice versa, having airfields does not mean SG cannot have carrier(s).
All countries that operate carriers have land air bases.
-
That's true, having binary capability does help flexibility instead of an "either/or" approach. Airfields are easier to target, harder to destroy, services all planes and can ship cargo and troops, but once the Forward Edge-Battle Area moves away, tough luck. Carriers are easier to destroy, harder to target, services only certain fighters, but can follow the battleline for CAS/ higher sortie rate. Provided support ships can be found to guard the carrier. It's more like a case of sum being greater than their parts. Only question for SG is, is it worth it, the end sum, both in cost, manpower and diplomatic blowup.
-
F-35B to be taken off probation today (US time)?
http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-f-35b-off-probation-sources-012807852.html
Even if Singapore does not get an aircraft carrier, getting the F-35B will allow RSAF pilots the opportunity to fly from USN carriers + amphs. Who wouldn't want to be a rsaf pilot then....*slurp* ...F-35Big recruitment plus.
-
Getting the B variant is a sure sign that a carrier or LPH will come soon.
-
I won't hold my breath though, project cost and time over runs are common. And I suspect they might have over declared how good the F-35 is. We'll see how well it shapes up in the field, knowing the US, they'll get into another fight sooner or later.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Getting the B variant is a sure sign that a carrier or LPH will come soon.
if we do get one, i prefer a LHA since in terms of ships, the bigger they are, the more efficient they become when operating it.
as for diplomatic blow up... the thais got one, and thanks to malaysia preventing our fighters from flying across the sky (their rights of course), we have good reasons to have one to maintain our security.
other neighbours probably would want one too themselves... so any blow up would be measured. unless our neighbour believe that a single LHA could invade them.
-
... LHA, LPH same thing. LPH's British terminology, LHA is American. Does not indicate size, just function. And the Thai's Charles D-G carrier is not totally operational. If Singapore does get a carrier, it's going to be seen in a totally different light as compared to the Thais due to our rumoured efficiency, which is why the diplomatic repercussions will be different. Thailand's carrier, with few aircraft, isn't an extremely serious threat. Singapore, with a carrier, will make others paranoid. And with good reason considering that we do not have a pressing need for one.
-
A single light carrier with a single (small) squadron of F-35s shouldn't make ASEAN paranoid. That carrier, like the Chakri, can't sustain strikes as many have pointed out (esp due to fuel for flight). By itself, it shouldn't make anyone nervous.
However, precisely because it can combine with Thai's Chakri, Aussie's Canberra and other navies in the region, complicates aggressor naval planning esp in the South China sea and Indian ocean. That is rather a contribution to regional security.
Indeed, if concerned about increasing Chinese & indian naval capabilities, countries esp like Phil/Vietnam/Brunei would welcome any addition to the local allied potential. Same reason why no one's complaining about the large surge in submarine capabilities all across the region.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
... LHA, LPH same thing. LPH’s British terminology, LHA is American. Does not indicate size, just function.
And the Thai’s Charles D-G carrier is not totally operational. If Singapore does get a carrier, it’s going to be seen in a totally different light as compared to the Thais due to our rumoured efficiency, which is why the diplomatic repercussions will be different.
Thailand’s carrier, with few aircraft, isn’t an extremely serious threat. Singapore, with a carrier, will make others paranoid. And with good reason considering that we do not have a pressing need for one.
lets be honest, its not due to our "efficiency" or because our carrier will really be a threat to their security.
its actually because we are the smallest nation around, and for a small small tiny dot to own a carrier before all our bigger neighbour does, tramples on their ego and make their govt looks bad infront of their people.
we need to see what we need to defend our country and stop worrying about how our neighbour will see us. especially when most of the "noise" are from little known political backbenchers seeking attention or media exposure and newspapers seeking to increase their sales by sensationalizing issues.
if we start to take account every moan and groans from our neighbour, should we next time ask their permission first, everytime before we eat a bowl of rice?
are we still a sovereign nation or not?
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
A single light carrier with a single (small) squadron of F-35s shouldn't make ASEAN paranoid. That carrier, like the Chakri, can't sustain strikes as many have pointed out (esp due to fuel for flight). By itself, it shouldn't make anyone nervous.
However, precisely because it can combine with Thai's Chakri, Aussie's Canberra and other navies in the region, complicates aggressor naval planning esp in the South China sea and Indian ocean. That is rather a contribution to regional security.
Indeed, if concerned about increasing Chinese & indian naval capabilities, countries esp like Phil/Vietnam/Brunei would welcome any addition to the local allied potential. Same reason why no one's complaining about the large surge in submarine capabilities all across the region.
the indian navy wont be bother with us having a carrier or two, they are more interested about pakistan and china then us.
singapore, thailand and australia are non - claimant to the south china sea, china would have little to worry about us too, as i cannot see the possibility of singapore, thailand, indonesia, burma, cambodia and laos (being non claimant to the SCS) providing full military and diplomatic backings against china.
furthermore, one small small carrier from singapore plus one small small carrier from thailand are hardly a match against china if PLAN is truely serious about taking back all those islands.
other then china's growing military might which are currently rising faster then the rest of asean could match... there is the china soft power, economic and diplomatic strength that would prove very very "persuasive".
-
Nimitz class nuke-powered carrier in town.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1179341/1/.html
-
anyone on this board know anything about a Singaporean ship called the Hammerhead?
-
can spore afford it and maintenance and fuel in the long run?
does it worth it to keep a white elephant at spore waters?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
can spore afford it and maintenance and fuel in the long run?
does it worth it to keep a white elephant at spore waters?
Good question. If Singapore wants to get one, then the RSN will factor in the annual maintenance cost and fuel over the lifespan of the ship. If its not affordable, then the RSN won't get one. No historical example of Mindef having bought equipment without factoring in usage price so it won't start now and definitely not for a big ticket item like a CV.
Annual maintenance cost per carrier based on UK experience is ~GBP 70m (S$140m) each year in FY07/08, that includes fuel etc.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081013/text/81013w0018.htm
It was ~GBP87m for FY05/06 for Illustrious. A significant amount of that comes from salaries which is likely less in Singapore. Also, new ships require less crew + more fuel efficient. S$140m is in any case under 2% of total defence budget every year. The opportunity cost is what 4 sq km of land can yield in terms of property taxes every year.
Aircraft fuel, pilot pay, aircraft cost and other such cost will occur whether on land or at sea so that shouldn't be an issue.
Of course, some people can suggest Singapore shouldn't have an air force as well...so no matter what Singapore gets = wrong.
-
Article by Defensenews: Our View: The Mistral Amphib is a Goldmine of Good Ideas
Quote: Able to carry up to 650 troops, up to 90 vehicles and between 16 heavy and 35 light helicopters, she has a crew of just 170 and costs about $600 million...
She carries slightly fewer troops than an LPD-17-class amphibious ship at a third the cost and half the crew, but has a flight deck and aviation capabilities more akin to a Wasp-class assault ship at a sixth the cost and crew size. End quote