A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
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.
Like I've said before, it is cheaper for the Govt to develop and sell you a 1 square meter house for $2, than to sell you a 2 square meter house for $1. It is more cost effective for the government to operate an air base on land.
-
News thats making its rounds... Russia to upgrade production capability to build 6 subs and 1 aircraft carrier a year.
http://www.rttnews.com/story.aspx?Id=1812434
New-builds for China or India?
-
SG shall NOT make CV just for the sake of making it.
Like Chinese saying go, before you hit others, protect yourself first.
CV is a floating duck and potential huge floating coffin without proper
protection from threats of submarine, surface and air .
ST Marine is selling 15,000 tons
Landing Platform Helicopter,LPH.,below photos.
Kindly note the official name listed below.
LPH seem give u a better idea of this ship.
I hope Chinese and MY forumers would not say SG is building mini CV.
I am against SG builing naval ship more than 5,000 tons.
m
ll
http://mforum.cari.com.my/viewthread.php?tid=450501&extra=&page=17
http://www.malaysiandefence.com/?p=592
ST Enng>> Products
google search/ image
ENDURANCE-160 Multi-Role Support Ship
mmm
-
u may be suprised ST Marine is capable to build 15,000 tons LPD.
Well, SG is repairing at least 10 % of global ships and dominate some class
of oil rigs, tailor made!
-
Carrier costs climbing (at least for the biggies)...
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20120229.aspx
-
If we get a carrier, we will need tons of regulars. It's not a job you can force people to do.
-
Everyone's laughing at the British... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/18/u-turn-aircraft-carriers-costs On page 18, it doesn't take a genius to guess that switching to the F-35C would be more expensive. Now we find out how much more expensive its going to be. The cost of CV conversion is now up to S$4 billion. That's not counting ballooning costs of the F-35C model. Now we know how UK can spend US$60 billion (3rd largest in the world) on the military and get an air force smaller than Turkey who spends 4 times less.
-
Nice summary article on carrier trends aka sea based airpower http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/dti/2012/04/01/DT_04_01_2012_p33-440130.xml&headline=Navies Worldwide Invest In Sea-Based Airpower "Not that long ago, the number of nations wielding sea-based airpower seemed to be headed inexorably downward. Today, the reverse is true. China is a brand-new member of the club. Brazil is sustaining its membership, a decade after retiring a carrier that the U.K. completed in 1945. India is expanding its aircraft carrier fleet, and the nations that acquired or maintained sea-based airpower with the short-take-off-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) Harrier may renew that capability with the Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. However, a common factor for almost all these nations is that they are just starting, or have yet to start, down a long and expensive road. It is not just that carrier-based aircraft are expensive, but that buying fighters and ships is only half the story. Although public attention is always focused on the construction cost of carriers, its aircraft are a bigger investment. In 2013, the U.S. Navy wants $967 million for its aircraft carrier program and about $6 billion for procurement of carrier-based aircraft (not including Marine Corps F-35Bs). The operating costs involved in training and supporting the carrier’s personnel, fuel and aircraft spares and refits are higher still. And the basic math says that you need three carrier groups for every full-time station. Nations see the cost as justified, as sea trade and offshore resources gain importance and as as the use of insurgency-type attacks for national ends turns land-based deployed forces into targets. The question is whether all would-be carrier club members recognize that building the ship is the initiation fee and that the annual dues are a killer. Money has already sparked a conflict within the British defense establishment over the aircraft type for the Royal Navy’s new carriers (see p. 27). It may not be the last such discussion. With Britain still officially committed to the catapult-arrest F-35C—at least as of late March—Italy is leading the way among sea-based Harrier operators. The carrier Cavour has been designed around the Stovl F-35B. Italy, Spain and India remain the sole operators of first or second-generation Harrier Stovl fighter-bombers, with Thailand having no longer a real operational capability. Italy’s Cavour is a hybrid vessel. It does not have a well deck but is designed to support amphibious operations. It has a full load displacement of 27,000 tons and is 244 meters (800 ft.) long. Its hangar can accommodate up to 10 F-35Bs, with flight-deck parking for another six F-35Bs and two helicopters. Cavour illustrates the fact that small carriers must be bigger than they used to be, to sustain real air operations. Compared with Italy’s “Harrier carrier,� the Garibaldi, Cavour is 64 meters longer and the flight deck has a total surface of 6,800 square meters (73,200 sq. ft.), with 4,450 square meters devoted to flight operations, versus 1,870 square meters on the Garibaldi. The Italian navy plans to buy 22 F-35Bs to replace 16 remaining Harriers. Its long-term planning includes acquisition of two large JSF-capable LHDs and an LHA (similar but with no well deck) to replace the Garibaldi and three smaller LHDs. This will allow Italy to have at least one carrier operational at any time. The Spanish navy is moving from its carrier Principe de Asturias to the large LHD Juan Carlos. It is currently operating 16 EAV-8B Plus aircraft, but would like to buy as many as 20 F-35Bs, budget permitting. The Juan Carlos is estimated to be able to operate no more than a dozen F-35Bs, because of its size and the fact that it has a well deck. Multiple nations are acquiring large LHDs that could carry F-35Bs. Australia is to commission the LHDs Canberra and Adelaide in 2014 and 2015 respectively, which are based on the Juan Carlos design, even including the ski-jump bow—which is valuable for Stovl operations, but a penalty the rest of the time, since the sloping deck space is unavailable for anything else. Japan has in service the Hyuga-class destroyer—a 200- meter-long, 20,000-ton vessel that can host 11 rotorcraft, and could lead to an F-35B-capable design. Japan, like Australia, is to acquire the F-35A for the air force. South Korea has yet another Asian navy that is considering building a large LHD, beyond the 18,000-ton Dokdo LPH. China and India could start a “carrier race� in the Pacific Rim. A dual-role ship class—a large LHA/LHD capable of operating jets—is a cheaper, less politically and strategically sensitive naval vessel that can provide substantial capabilities if fitted with a supersonic, stealth fighter bomber. The question is how many countries will buy F-35Bs to operate from LHDs. The LHD is a multimission ship that has to carry landing craft, helicopters, troops and vehicles and a command center and staff. Even in a ship of close to 30,000 tons, space is at a premium. The F-35B is a complex aircraft, as heavy and powerful as a Super Hornet, and will have similar demands for maintenance personnel and space, test equipment, spares and fuel. The U.S. Marines, working with 50,000-ton ships, tried trading the well deck on the LHA-6 and LHA-7 for extra fuel and aviation space, but will not repeat that with LHA-8 and beyond. Compared with true carriers LHDs have narrower flight decks, which limit the pace of flight operations. Another important factor will be the acquisition and operating cost of the F-35B, which has yet to be defined. India is taking a different approach to expanding its carrier operations—although it is one that tends to underline India’s reputation for a scattershot approach to acquisitions. Sea trials of the carrier INS Vikramaditya, formerly the Russian Kiev-class Admiral Gorshkov, are scheduled to begin in the Barents Sea on May 29 and last two to three weeks. Its much-delayed handover to the Indian navy is due on Dec. 4. Major changes to the ship include the removal of cruise missile tube and surface-to-air missile vertical launchers and the installation of a forward flight deck and ski-jump for short-takeoff-but-assisted-recovery (Stobar) operations. The ship can carry 24 MiG-29K/KUBs—developed specially for India—and six to eight Kamov Ka-31 airborne early warning helicopters. The first MiG-29K/KUB fighter jets are already operating at the naval aviation base at Goa. These are from an initial batch of 11 aircraft ordered at the same time that the carrier deal was signed. India and Russia inked an additional $1.5 billion deal for 29 more MiG-29K/KUBs in March 2010. Delivery of the second batch of MiG fighters will start this year. The contracts include pilot training and aircraft maintenance, including the delivery of flight simulators and interactive ground and sea-based training systems."
-
I feel sad reading this. Gone are the days when it was supercarriers vs cruise missiles and a tiny carrier was of no value at all.
-
How not to do a CV procurement (or any procurement for that matter) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130612/Cameron-makes-humiliating-u-turn-future-Britains-aircraft-carriers.html?ITO=1490 http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15969-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-405.html UK PM to revert back to aircraft that he condemned as too expensive and less capable...lol. Apparently, the F-35C can't land on the French CV CDG as well being too heavy. And the new catapults for the QE class can't launch Rafales either. Funnily enough there will be 11 extra USMC amph vessels that the F-35B can operate from in addition to the US CVN that will operate both the F-35B and C versions. So much for the Allied argument...
-
adoi don't build aircraft carrier lah, build star trek or
Battlestar Galactica. rlol
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Funnily enough there will be 11 extra USMC amph vessels that the F-35B can operate from in addition to the US CVN that will operate both the F-35B and C versions.
Is this part confirmed? F-35B and C will coexist on the CVNs?
-
Originally posted by alize:
Is this part confirmed? F-35B and C will coexist on the CVNs?
confirmed...................
but they scared later the evil Decepticon StarScream will try to pretend to be F35 leh.........
-
You shuold be happy. Israel buying also you know.
-
Originally posted by alize:
You shuold be happy. Israel buying also you know.
israel buy but usa and germany paying
-
Waste money, hor. A simple helicopter with Hellfire can do the job.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Is this part confirmed? F-35B and C will coexist on the CVNs?
If they didn't, they wouldn't be testing it per below and mentioning in the same breath with the CVN 21 (aka Gerald Ford class).
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2009/pdf/navy/2009cvn21.pdf
Clearly the issue in the attached is not that much of a concern for the B version anymore after the Wasp test landings and take-offs.
Historically, Harriers have landed and taken off from CVN-68s so its not exactly new. Its not a SOP for Harriers to operate off super-carriers but they have. If harriers can do it, I see no operational issues why F-35Bs can't.
-
I'm not asking if can't but if they will.
Any insight on whether RSAF ones will be A or B?
-
Interesting article on the Mistral training for the Russkis
177 personnel needed for each Mistral. 1 year training for crew, 2 years for officers. Cannot NSmen liao, too long.
-
Originally posted by alize:
I'm not asking if can't but if they will.
Any insight on whether RSAF ones will be A or B?
No idea at this time. But if I'm in DSTA considering the F-35B, I'd be asking the USN/USMC whether our F-35B pilots can be seconded/attached to Wasp class LHDs/other CVNs if operating the F-35B. That would be a huge pilot recruitment coup....I'd also ask for Wasp class LHDs to be in the south china sea region for joint F-35B sea control exercises. And for access to Okinawa's USMC base for joint air training when they deploy the F-35Bs there....
...and talk to the Brits about sending their QEs to FPDA exercises so that the F-35Bs can do joint exercises onboard (once they switch back to the F-35Bs that is)...
We can even enter into a loan agreement where we can loan the Brits our F-35Bs (minus pilots) if they need it for a Falklands type event and vice versa, we loan from the Brits if we need more fighters.
That's in addition to the Eglin/Cherry point training in the states. And for USMC F-35B to be rotated to Singapore/Australia for joint air exercises. That's way more than what getting the F-35As can offer.
-
I'll say F-35B because at these prices, no neighbouring country can afford matching aircraft. B's good enough. They probably can't afford a PAK FA or very many Flankers.
B is also the least troubled for now.
As for your other suggestions, paging for Dalforce...
-
177 regular personnel per Mistral is possible. If Sg spends on people more like it spends on equipment, it is possible. I would join. More people stand to lose their jobs in future anyway.
-
Thailand spends ~US$26m (180m Krona) to upgrade C&C onboard the Chakri so that their Gripens don't accidentally sink it. Contract runs between 2012-2015.
-
I think it makes a handsome DDH or LPH. Thailand just has to pair it with a cheap LPD and it has a powerful amphibious force.
-
Government in £100m U-turn over F35-B fighter planes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18008171
note there are serious problems in the article's definition of EMALS