A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
Your initial post addressed major issues except for one - is the navy large enough to protect an aircraft carrier?
IF the RSN is large enough, then I believe over 90% of major surface combatants will be deployed with the carrier - you end up with a CVBG. But 1 CVBG cannot cover all waters around Singapore, many loopholes.
I don't see any current solution to the problem above.
On another point, if you have the carrier hit (assuming we use your theory of "1 land airfield for 1 sea airfield"), wouldn't that result in destruction of at least an entire squadron of aircraft?
I believe a land based staging area for aircraft is much easier to protect than a sea based one.
-
While the "floating airbase" - not so much an aircraft carrier - is a great idea that is similar to the makeshift National Day Review Stand built over the waters at the Esplanade, one has to consider that whatever man builds, it can also be easily destroyed.
With the floating airbase built of concrete - security and safety for the assets from being attacked will have to be considered.
The development of JDAM deep penetrating high explosive and bunker busting bombs - that "floating airbase" built of concrete will have to have some high grade bomb resistant shelters to store all the air assets that will operate from it.
Even if these air assets are stored in deep underground shelters and brought to the surface by elevators, these assets will be of little use if the heavy elevator doors remained shut when damaged in any small ways.
Besides attacks from the air, the "floating airbase" will have to protects it sides and bottom from torpedoes and cruise missiles carrying high explosives - even as the floating platform are built in various compartmentalised frames or forms.
Total Defense will take on a new meaning in defending a "Floating Airbase".
-
The Titanic was touted as unsinkable, "Even God cannot sink her." She also have the compartmentalised concept to contain flooding, and can still float with a couple of compartment flooded by a puncture. The Titanic was done in not by God, but most probably by Murphy's or Hobson's Law. A floating platform is a sitting duck, secrecy of its location is paramount. Can Singaporeans keep a secret?
Anyway an SAF aircraft carrier would be a military nut's dream, simply of manpower issues. Substitute FTs in place of qualified Singaporeans? Singaporean women to be conscripted?
-
i believe its the job of the fighters on the MOB to prevent the MOB from being hammered by bunker buster and watever JDAM or JSOW, anti ship missile or torpedos.
afterall, the fighters on the carriers are suppose to do that, and i have no intention of having our fly boys suck thumbs on the MOB while the enemy turn us into a floating target range.
furthermore, if you have read my post carefully, you would notice that i had proposed a multi-runway AFB combined with a naval base and several army battalions on the single MOB.
its my belief that the MOB must be big, so big that it could take the hit of a hundred bunker buster without baiting an eyelid.... that's deterrence!
yes... its not just a MOB, its a freaking monster floating fortress!!
-
wats the ponit of building aircraft-carrier or some floating runway ???
when SAF regular only know how 2 slp and force ns man to work?
other country have aircraft carrier becase their ppl r able to operate 1... take a look around SAF regular.... u c any of them can work?
wat makes u think a lousy organisation like SAF , navy , airfroce etc needs a aircraft carrier or are even able to operate 1 ?
such money shld be spent on other gov agency who r working rather then a wayang organisation like SAF.
-
Originally posted by mancha:
The Titanic was touted as unsinkable, "Even God cannot sink her." She also have the compartmentalised concept to contain flooding, and can still float with a couple of compartment flooded by a puncture. The Titanic was done in not by God, but most probably by Murphy's or Hobson's Law. A floating platform is a sitting duck, secrecy of its location is paramount. Can Singaporeans keep a secret?
Anyway an SAF aircraft carrier would be a military nut's dream, simply of manpower issues. Substitute FTs in place of qualified Singaporeans? Singaporean women to be conscripted?
nothing is indestructible... but that didnt prevent man from building multi-storey flats above 100 meters, nor did it prevent man from flying in a plane or continue to sail on the sea after titanic.
-
this is wat will happen if u give stupid SAF a aircraft carrier
-
Originally posted by rebound:
wats the ponit of building aircraft-carrier or some floating runway ???
when SAF regular only know how 2 slp and force ns man to work?
other country have aircraft carrier becase their ppl r able to operate 1... take a look around SAF regular.... u c any of them can work?
wat makes u think a lousy organisation like SAF , navy , airfroce etc needs a aircraft carrier or are even able to operate 1 ?
such money shld be spent on other gov agency who r working rather then a wayang organisation like SAF.
that's crap talk!!!
every country have criminals, by your line of thought, should every country just roll over and die?
-
Originally posted by rebound:
this is wat will happen if u give stupid SAF a aircraft carrier
going by your logic, nobody should drive cars, because i have not seen a single nation with cars and have zero car accident!
cut the crap and get back to topic or stick your nose elsewhere.
-
Originally posted by tripwire:
going by your logic, nobody should drive cars, because i have not seen a single nation with cars and have zero car accident!
cut the crap and get back to topic or stick your nose elsewhere.
Get used to the crap, this is sgforums. And yeah, i do like the idea of SAF manning an aircraft carrier. Its like holding a huge "Don't fuck with us" sign in Malaysia's face
-
ture. but sg is the onli very few country that depends on ns man and their regular take so much money n slp and let ns man do their job. wat make u think ns man( mostly in their early 20sbeing froce to serve) will do a proper job?
most regular i know sign up because of the paid and the slack life. u sure expansive thing can be trusted on ppl like them??
-
The following photos are that of an American Entrepreneur who dreamed of selling properties built on an 'unsinkable' floating and cruising, self-contained city - aptly named "Freedom Ship".
The vessel is 1,317 meters long, 221 meters wide, with an overall height at 104 meters above sea level, and weighs 2.7million metric tons.
It has a self-contained airport with at least two parallel runways to allow residents and visitors to fly in and out of this floating city.
Total Passenger Capacity is said to be 50,000 residents and 20,000 visitors, with a crew of 15,000 (that include the operators running and maintaining the ship plus the service personnels manning the various retail and personal services).
Translate this vision into a hard asset for a floating outpost for the SAF.
-
Originally posted by rebound:
ture. but sg is the onli very few country that depends on ns man and their regular take so much money n slp and let ns man do their job. wat make u think ns man( mostly in their early 20sbeing froce to serve) will do a proper job?
most regular i know sign up because of the paid and the slack life. u sure expansive thing can be trusted on ppl like them??
you gotta realize something... in the eyes of another, you are no better.
its not about trust, its about management.
for all the good and bad about singaporeans and singapore... we have come this far, not by giving up nor by lamenting under the blanket.
looking around the region, singapore as it is today, is something worth to be proud of.
-
Originally posted by chanjyj:
Your initial post addressed major issues except for one - is the navy large enough to protect an aircraft carrier?
IF the RSN is large enough, then I believe over 90% of major surface combatants will be deployed with the carrier - you end up with a CVBG. But 1 CVBG cannot cover all waters around Singapore, many loopholes.
I don't see any current solution to the problem above.
On another point, if you have the carrier hit (assuming we use your theory of "1 land airfield for 1 sea airfield"), wouldn't that result in destruction of at least an entire squadron of aircraft?
I believe a land based staging area for aircraft is much easier to protect than a sea based one.
I acknowledge the points raised. Further, some may also regard 1 CV as insufficient to provide round the clock coverage (in-port times required) and that 3 CVs are actually minimum requirements.
The contention of having a CV sunk = loss of all aircraft onboard applies not just to SG but all CV operators. That is the risk any CV operator takes. If the argentines had sunk or crippled a british CV in '82, it would have had a significant impact on the ability of the British to take back the Falklands and defend the fleet. Yet ultimately, the argentines did not manage that. Since 1945, no CV has been lost in combat.
It is as mentioned a trade off. The question is whether cost savings afforded by giving up a land airfield offset CV operations? A base the size of PLAB may generate several $Billions in revenues from land sales/redevelopment (DC charges) and more than adequately cover the cost of purchasing sqns of next gen fighters, possibly CVs and other assets.
Also, the purpose of having a CV is not meant to put SG's entire security into a single egg in the basket. There will still be land based assets in land bases.
Indeed, a land base in a prime area can also be shifted to a land base in a less costly location maybe affording some savings as well.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
I acknowledge the points raised. Further, some may also regard 1 CV as insufficient to provide round the clock coverage (in-port times required) and that 3 CVs are actually minimum requirements.
The contention of having a CV sunk = loss of all aircraft onboard applies not just to SG but all CV operators. That is the risk any CV operator takes. If the argentines had sunk or crippled a british CV in '82, it would have had a significant impact on the ability of the British to take back the Falklands and defend the fleet. Yet ultimately, the argentines did not manage that. Since 1945, no CV has been lost in combat.
It is as mentioned a trade off. The question is whether cost savings afforded by giving up a land airfield offset CV operations? A base the size of PLAB may generate several $Billions in revenues from land sales/redevelopment (DC charges) and more than adequately cover the cost of purchasing sqns of next gen fighters, possibly CVs and other assets.
Also, the purpose of having a CV is not meant to put SG's entire security into a single egg in the basket. There will still be land based assets in land bases.
Indeed, a land base in a prime area can also be shifted to a land base in a less costly location maybe affording some savings as well.
Yes, but the fact is that most other CV operators have backups - either another carrier or land bases. Even if their CV is destroyed (forward battle area), they do have defences for their homeland. If Singapore's CV is destroyed, how many planes do we have left?
And your point of getting rid of airbase land for industrial development; even if it works, there is doubt it can fund another CV group, let alone manpower issues.
-
It is not a "all or nothing" suggestion. No one expects RSAF to transform from a 100% land based airforce to a 100% CV only airforce.
As mentioned, RSAF operates 3 main fighter bases each operating 2/3 sqns of aircraft. Reduce 1 air base = 2, maybe 3 sqn to relocate. Why not locate 1 sqn on a CV and distribute the rest to the other 2 remaining base? That's still 6 more remaining if 1 sqn fails which is a lot of backup. With the F-35B, alternative bases such as Sembawang and Seletar can even be considered as well.
With reference to the CV "battle group", it would be useful to highlight what kind and how many escorts are "must haves" vs "good to haves". Contrast that with the existing capabilities of regional navies to counter such a group.
The entire spanish fleet operates just 10 frigates and 4 subs with just that 1 carrier of theirs. Does RSN operate fewer vessels?
Will operating 1 carrier suddenly plunge SG and Mindef into a manpower crisis, I'd hardly think so esp when ships like the Juan Carlos operate with just 243 crew. There are tangible benefits from operating a CV though in terms of deployment, flight training, fleet protection esp in blue water ops eg Gulf of Aden etc.
PLAB was originally built for passenger jet liners. Is using a base to house aircraft that doesn't need that much runway or facilities really efficient? Redundancy has a price-tag.
-
What about a helicopter carrier? I feel the utility of a large aircraft carrier is rather, well...slim, but I could make a case for a light aircraft carrier. A small nifty little ship like the British HMS Ocean or the Yank Wasp-class ships could allow us to base existing helicopter assets off of it. It'd just be an amphibious assault ship, basically, like an expanded LST. Forgive me for the lecture :D
The plus points would be: one, we can use existing rotary-wing aircraft (plus our SH-60 Seahawks when they arrive).
Two, being able to deploy more helicopters at sea would help us in some areas: anti-submarine warfare, humanitarian support, containing threats from small boats and the like.
Three, it could support amphibious operations.
Four, if our armed forces feel creative, they could base UAVs and VTOL/STOVL aircraft off of the deck. I mean, it has a flat top.
Of course, there are the problems of cost, logistics, politics and feasibility that have been covered above by everyone else.
I like the TS's arguments. Good that he introduced this topic :) Personally, though, I think that a fixed-wing capable aircraft carrier would be of limited utiity in wartime. The liabilities of protecting and paying and politically defending and manning it could well outweigh the benefits of getting an alternate airfield and (the marginal) forward deployability. I'm a pessimist, really.
Then again, I'm talking off the top of my head, as we all are. It'd be nice if someone like the DSTA or the Navy staff took the topic up and crunched some numbers. Wonder if they surf SGForums? :)
Oh yeah, here's some info about the Chakri Nareubet, Thailand's aircraft carrier.
EDIT: oops, looks like this has been touched on before in an earlier post. In any case, I hope I add to the debate :P
-
the TS's purpose is to explore the viability of a F35B-light carrier concept in the very long run when maintaining land-based airbases might be unfeasible in land scarce singapore.
not to lobby or make policy recommendations i think. im sure any adequately qualified procurement/policy maker would have half a brain and wouldnt even consider threads or forum postings some form of legitimitazation or political currency to spend, nor even factor it into their decision making process.
It'd be nice if we got realistic. if we do get a light carrier, with no little to no coastline to defend, how do we justify such a carrier in the short to medium term ? just look at the HYUGA class of the JMSDF as a case in point. one "helicopter destroyer" and all that political controversy.
your points are unrealistic to begin with
1) its either a complement of fixed, or rotary wing or a complement of both. but numbers are finite. deck space is premium space. having F35Bs or STOVL aircraft operating will take up precious top deck space the helos need to land on and hangar space. i.e its probably more efficient to have something like 12 helos or 8 F35Bs rather than 6 helos and 3 F35Bs. you cant cut it either way unless you want to upsize the ship. and it wouldnt really fit into a light carrier definition after that.
STOVL aircraft are likely to have a higher munitions and fuel load, that will entail significantly more capacity and if built to mil-spec steel, significant cost increases, not to mention the air-wing maintainence and crew.
2) sure, under what sea state conditions can helicopters be effectively deployed, recovered and operated? do we have several thousand miles of EEZ to patrol and protect or do we have a 2000NM coastline ? already, what we have for our waters is overkill.
an oft overabused statistic is that singapore's "amphibuous capacity" is one of the highest in the world if compared to a ship to population ratio.
3) what amphibuous missions are we talking about ? what redland is there to fight ? how are your SAF troops going to mount an amphibuous assault without being within range of MLRS fire ?
if the carrier / whatever exists at that point, is to stay safe, it has to be out of MLRS range at the minimum. that may need OTH force projection capability. with the number of helos currently avaliable, can we do that ? can we upkeep a logistics chain from that distance ? are there enough landing craft to operate from a ship to shore at that kinda distance after accounting for attrition and equipment failure ? do we currently have any amphibuous armor assets that could support a ship-to-shore assault ?
unlikely SAF can ever develop a full and proper expeditionary capacity. limited amphibuous support yes. amphibuous warfare/ MEU style invasion against enemy held territory, unlikely.
4) still space constraints. UAV crew = strain on shipboard bandwith/communication requirements. the same problem as mentioned in 1) still remains. its a tradeoff. u can either have X quantity of UAV or Y quantity of F35Bs but only X-5 UAVs + Y-4 F35Bs if you use them together.dont look at the chakri naubet. its a bad example to look at as she rarely leaves port (or so from what ive read). the HYUGA class will be interesting to observe how she complements the KONGO class AEGIS cruisers and joint JMSDF-US 7th fleet (PACCOM) exercises
-
To propose an aircraft carrier for SG reeks of utter stupidity that would make lionnoisy look like a genius.
All BOYS like to compare the size of their dicks. They're still immature so they have no brains yet.
Ask yourself, what is an aircraft carrier for?
It is a naval platform designed for force projection. Now does a tiny country like SG have the ability to force project sustainably? You SG people can answer that yourselves.
Resources would be better spent on more defensive assets, so stop dreaming and think about more realistic proposals.
-
I am surprised how some people manage to raise the art of talking stink out of their ar*ses to new heights.
An aircraft carrier is designed to operate aircraft normally over water/seas. Using words like "force projection" without understanding what it means certainly is a display of utter genius.
An island is a place surrounded by water including seas.
An island which operates an airforce can be expected to operate that airforce over the waters surrounding it.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
I am surprised how some people manage to raise the art of talking stink out of their ar*ses to new heights.
An aircraft carrier is designed to operate aircraft normally over water/seas. Using words like "force projection" without understanding what it means certainly is a display of utter genius.
An island is a place surrounded by water including seas.
An island which operates an airforce can be expected to operate that airforce over the waters surrounding it.
just how much sea area r within singapore border boundaries... might as well just have changi and tuas naval base is enough...
unless u want it to be at international water... -
You mean RSN has 6 sea-going frigates, 6 corvettes, 12 PVs and 4-6 subs just to patrol SG's 12 mile zone only?
That probably explains why a LST and FFG will shortly be operating in the gulf of aden.
RSN's scope of ops is well-known and public info. East is the South China Sea (3500k sq km). South is the Java Sea (320k sq km). West is the Indian Ocean (73500k sq km). Take your pick.
"The mission of the Republic of Singapore Navy is to defend Singapore against sea-borne threats and to protect its sea lines of communications that encompass the Singapore Straits and its access routes. "
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/navy/home.html
Can the RSN protect Singapore's SLOCs with limited/no air cover from SG or will a CV enhance its ability to protect its SLOCs?
-
how to solve the manpower problem then...?
-
Need to define what exactly is the manpower problem.
If referring to CV crew size: Refer 4th post of page 1.
If referring to overall operational size: Refer 1st post of page 1 (trade off with land base crew).
If referring to CV battle group size: Refer to 16th post of page 2.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
It is not a "all or nothing" suggestion. No one expects RSAF to transform from a 100% land based airforce to a 100% CV only airforce.
As mentioned, RSAF operates 3 main fighter bases each operating 2/3 sqns of aircraft. Reduce 1 air base = 2, maybe 3 sqn to relocate. Why not locate 1 sqn on a CV and distribute the rest to the other 2 remaining base? That's still 6 more remaining if 1 sqn fails which is a lot of backup. With the F-35B, alternative bases such as Sembawang and Seletar can even be considered as well.
With reference to the CV "battle group", it would be useful to highlight what kind and how many escorts are "must haves" vs "good to haves". Contrast that with the existing capabilities of regional navies to counter such a group.
The entire spanish fleet operates just 10 frigates and 4 subs with just that 1 carrier of theirs. Does RSN operate fewer vessels?
Will operating 1 carrier suddenly plunge SG and Mindef into a manpower crisis, I'd hardly think so esp when ships like the Juan Carlos operate with just 243 crew. There are tangible benefits from operating a CV though in terms of deployment, flight training, fleet protection esp in blue water ops eg Gulf of Aden etc.
PLAB was originally built for passenger jet liners. Is using a base to house aircraft that doesn't need that much runway or facilities really efficient? Redundancy has a price-tag.
Slim, the number of aircraft sqn you are projecting has some errors.
Example: Changi Airbase (East & West) has 3sqns. Only ONE is a fighter Sqn, 145 Sqn (F16D Blk 50/52+). The other 2 (121sqn and 112sqn are the F50 and KC135).
Paya Lebar - F5s and C130s
Tengah - F16s and E2Cs
It is more like 3-4 fighter/strike sqns left if one is relocated to a CV. (Let's ignore overseas assets for now)
With regards to a CVBG - we need ammo support and oil etc. A large ship which can support the CVBG (another ship). Our Formidables; 4? Corvettes; 6? Subs; 2? I think that is quite a chunk of current RSN assets.