A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
That will make it 2 more platforms that a RSAF F-35B, assuming DSTA picks it, will be able to cross-operate from as part of an alliance. FPDA exercises could become very interesting, if it happens. It could also give the RN an excuse to send the QEs out to these waters (instead of just escort ships).
There will be other synergy with the Royal Navy. Formidable FFGs use the same missiles as the Type 45s and can ride shotgun. The G-550s + MPAs can provide provide needed long-endurance AEW cover. Who knows, the LCS might even join in...
-
Sg's entire current defence budget can only buy 40 of them. Damn.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Sg's entire current defence budget can only buy 40 of them. Damn.
Doesn't work that way. Budget can allocate US$1b a year for F-35 acquisition. Over 30 years, essentially, that's US$30b worth.
Mindef can take out a US$30b loan which could afford 126 F-35A immediately (but more likely spread over many years as a/c are bought in batches with milestone payments).
From FY2001 to FY2010 (10 years), US sold US$10.48 billion of arms to Singapore (incl F-15s/F-16s/helos etc) so US$1b a year is not a big jump. Having said that, number of F-35 bought are likely to be lower than 126.
-
Just an illustration, no one can deliver 126 right off the line because other allies also want them.
What's the unit production cost? A few countries won't be buying it due to cost. It'll give the other Super Hornet replacement a chance. We'll probably get some too.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Just an illustration, no one can deliver 126 right off the line because other allies also want them.
What's the unit production cost? A few countries won't be buying it due to cost. It'll give the other Super Hornet replacement a chance. We'll probably get some too.
The problem is that many are focussed on unit production cost when DSCA approvals give another picture of cost which includes necesssary infrastructure etc.
Japan: US$10b for 42As.
Israel: US$15.2b for 75As.
Australia: A$3.2b for 14As.
The Canadian public spat also reveals that these may only be initial cost that doesn't cover maintenance.
Canada: C$17.6b for 65As or C$29b if includes maintenance. Add ~10-20% for Bs.
If you look at the expenditure list, we're looking at 12 in the top 26 who have signed on to the F-35 (Norway being the lowest budget) and 3-4 more in that list who may be interested (and some F-16 users outside the list).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
If you look at the very popular F-16, only 26 nations have actually got them.
We will not get the SH replacement. Its designed for catobar carrier ops. Judging by the budget, I'm thinking RSAF/DSTA may be looking longterm at 3 x JSF plane sqn (max 4) The combinations are interesting to speculate. (48A+16Bs?, 48 or 72As, 48 or 64Bs, 24As + 32/48Bs, etc).
-
singapore has absolutely no desire or need to operate an aircraft carrier.
It is for force projection....that is absolutely not in our national interest or military doctrine.
So no need to dream la, will never happen in 10,000 years. We don't buy things to look nice or admire..
-
But we have 4 LPD. Isn't that force projection? What if someone one day decides to give CAS to the landing force?
Singapore-designed vehicles are compact, not only to cross weak bridges overseas but also to cram more aboard ships and airlifters.
-
For the record I don't think it's necessary but it's possible. You never know what they find cash in the defence budget for.
-
Originally posted by merkava4:
singapore has absolutely no desire or need to operate an aircraft carrier.
It is for force projection....that is absolutely not in our national interest or military doctrine.
So no need to dream la, will never happen in 10,000 years. We don't buy things to look nice or admire..
Funnily enough, the naysayers said the same thing about MBTs and MLRS in Singapore.
-
People doubted the MBTs and MLRS because they are provocative. More so an LPD but it can definitely happen.
We decided to lag another country in acquiring MBT and MLRS. If we get an LPD, we'll be leaders, because the only two VSTOL aircraft are either out of production or horribly expensive.
Which is entirely possible. Just ten years ago our military was modest, matching rather than leading in capabilities. As shown in the SSPH, AH-64, 6 submarines etc there has been a decision to start acquiring weapons with or without other countries getting them first.
-
Incidentally I don't see the rationale of NSFs crewing MBTs. For one thing, tankers need familiarity with their vehicles. What we're doing is training a new batch of tankers every two years and keeping the ORD batch on standby while they are not ready. Training the ORD batch once a year does not upkeep their skills. After a few years they won't be very good crewmen.
For another, the men could increase our military potential by serving a vocation not as susceptible to degradation of skills, or where their loss will be less keenly felt.
Sure when tanks get damaged, the crews tend to get brewed up in them, and when the tank is repaired you will need a pool of replacement crews. But with the current model, I wonder if we will see more brewed up tanks and crews in the first place. Why so many more batches of ex-tankers than we have L2SG tanks (133)?
-
Originally posted by alize:
People doubted the MBTs and MLRS because they are provocative. More so an LPD but it can definitely happen.
We decided to lag another country in acquiring MBT and MLRS. If we get an LPD, we'll be leaders, because the only two VSTOL aircraft are either out of production or horribly expensive.
Which is entirely possible. Just ten years ago our military was modest, matching rather than leading in capabilities. As shown in the SSPH, AH-64, 6 submarines etc there has been a decision to start acquiring weapons with or without other countries getting them first.
depends on what you want to see lor.
if your eye can only see singapore and malaysia, then what you say is correct. but obviously malaysia is not the "standard" of ASEAN military.
if only you choose to see further then just singapore and malaysia, and reach out to ASEAN, then you will seeeeeee......
for example, before malaysia have their ASTROS, indonesia, thailand, vietnam, cambodia and probably myammar as well, already long have it, and lets not even mention about MBT where thailand alone has been operating a large number of M60 to counter the T-tanks along its borders.
thailand also has a mini carrier (what is a LPD? hahaha) and has been operating M109 SPH, indonesia was operating 2 submarine for decades (until it rusted away), while even poor poor philipine was operating 25 attack helicopters against insurgents.
choose whatever you want to believe, anyway... we dont build our military against your beloved malaysia's "standard".
we build to deter agrression and to win swiftly should deterence fail.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Incidentally I don't see the rationale of NSFs crewing MBTs. For one thing, tankers need familiarity with their vehicles. What we're doing is training a new batch of tankers every two years and keeping the ORD batch on standby while they are not ready. Training the ORD batch once a year does not upkeep their skills. After a few years they won't be very good crewmen.
For another, the men could increase our military potential by serving a vocation not as susceptible to degradation of skills, or where their loss will be less keenly felt.
Sure when tanks get damaged, the crews tend to get brewed up in them, and when the tank is repaired you will need a pool of replacement crews. But with the current model, I wonder if we will see more brewed up tanks and crews in the first place. Why so many more batches of ex-tankers than we have L2SG tanks (133)?
let me guess....
1. because got MC, chicken pox outbreak, flu outbreak and god knows what else will "break", so better to have more people who know how to use L2SG.
2. stupid war broke out, germany decides to send us another 1000 L2SG... or maybe indonesia might wanna lend us their L2 (if they do get it).
3. 133 tanks? maybe its typo error, should be 331 tanks?
4. there is a rumor that there are hundreds of MBT from israel hidden under pedra branca.
5. we might buy more L2 when opportunity knocks.
-
Originally posted by tripwire:
depends on what you want to see lor.
if your eye can only see singapore and malaysia, then what you say is correct. but obviously malaysia is not the "standard" of ASEAN military.
if only you choose to see further then just singapore and malaysia, and reach out to ASEAN, then you will seeeeeee......
for example, before malaysia have their ASTROS, indonesia, thailand, vietnam, cambodia and probably myammar as well, already long have it, and lets not even mention about MBT where thailand alone has been operating a large number of M60 to counter the T-tanks along its borders.
thailand also has a mini carrier (what is a LPD? hahaha) and has been operating M109 SPH, indonesia was operating 2 submarine for decades (until it rusted away), while even poor poor philipine was operating 25 attack helicopters against insurgents.
choose whatever you want to believe, anyway... we dont build our military against your beloved malaysia's "standard".
we build to deter agrression and to win swiftly should deterence fail.
What talking you?
Thailand's mini carrier is less capable than any LPD. Smaller and it doesn't even have a well deck.
Where is Malaysia mentioned in my post?
You're the stupid fuck who insisted that Singapore claims the full 12 mile nautical boundary limit on milnuts, until someone rubbished your claim and you shut up, right?
-
Originally posted by tripwire:
let me guess....
1. because got MC, chicken pox outbreak, flu outbreak and god knows what else will "break", so better to have more people who know how to use L2SG.
2. stupid war broke out, germany decides to send us another 1000 L2SG... or maybe indonesia might wanna lend us their L2 (if they do get it).
3. 133 tanks? maybe its typo error, should be 331 tanks?
4. there is a rumor that there are hundreds of MBT from israel hidden under pedra branca.
5. we might buy more L2 when opportunity knocks.
You are Lionnoisy's replacement, right.
As for your Malaysia mania, I am not for Malaysia or against Indonesia. But you must be a very stupid strategist to think allying with Indonesia against Malaysia will solve our problems. Or that Indonesia loves you. Your brain must be smaller than your vagina.
-
Singapore need aircraft carrier for F ?
TS need to.....
-
Originally posted by Just_do_it_lah:
Singapore need aircraft carrier for F ?
TS need to.....
Read from post 1 in page 1.... -
"...all the Navy’s amphibious assault ships will ultimately operate the F-35B, none, including Wasp, is fully configured for the aircraft’s operation. Wasp, however, already features several JSF-specific alterations, including electrical power modifications, expanded weapons handling and storage, provisions for a new automated logistics system and flight deck modifications...
All Wasp-class assault ships and the new America-class ships will receive the modifications, estimated to cost about $68 million per ship."
-
India to only have 1 CV until at least 2017 (which is smaller than the chinese one already sailing), not counting the almost toothless Viraat.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-16/india/32697935_1_iac-cbgs-aircraft-carrier
-
Whilst everyone is focussed what the new number 16 PLAN carrier will be called (apparently 'Liaoning'), someone is looking at how many is enough...
http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2012/09/12/the-carrier-dilemma-how-many-is-enough/
On the other hand, the chinese are thinking it differently...
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/728498.shtml
Aircraft carriers' myriad uses go beyond maritime military strengthBy Li Jie Are aircraft carriers a necessity, especially for great powers? What kind of aircraft carriers do national navies need? There are many controversies over these questions in some countries, including China.
Some hold that researching and producing aircraft carriers costs too much, believing it's only a waste of money and manpower.
Undoubtedly, producing aircraft carriers is very costly compared with researching and developing other weapons. It's not only expensive to build aircraft carriers; a large amount of money is also needed to equip the fleet with shipboard aircrafts and other convoy ships. Moreover, the maintenance fee during the service period of the aircraft carrier fleet is substantial.
Therefore, aircraft carriers are unaffordable to some small- and medium-sized countries.
For example, the cost on researching and building a US Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier has soared to $15 billion. It takes as much as another $10 billion to equip the ship with shipboard aircrafts and other convoy ships.
The cost during the service period of the fleet amounts to roughly $100 billion. It is the high cost that prevents some countries developing aircraft carriers.
Currently, there are only nine countries around the world that have aircraft carriers, and the total number of aircraft carriers globally is only 20, of which 11 are in the US navy.
However, the advantages and benefits that a carrier fleet can bring are considerable.
Aircraft carriers are incomparable and cannot be replaced by other weapons. If a big power wants to become a strong power, it has to develop aircraft carriers. Those who hope to use other weapons to substitute for aircraft carriers are doomed to failure. They eventually have to return to developing large- and medium-sized aircraft carriers. The experiences of countries such as Russia, the UK and India in developing aircraft carriers are convincing examples.
Building aircraft carriers can enhance nations' defense in depth in the ocean. The foreign invasions of our country's waters in the century prior to the establishment of the PRC demonstrated the weak maritime power of China.
In the future, after China's aircraft carrier is put into use, our maritime strength will be greatly and comprehensively improved.
Traditional large- and medium-sized warships such as cruisers and destroyers can perform outstandingly in anti-ship, air defense and antisubmarine operations. But they don't have the ability of air space control.
If China has its own aircraft carrier fleet, it could effectively deal with any sea and air combat. The excellent performance of the aircraft carrier fleet will become prominent with the gradual expanding of national maritime interests.
In general, getting an aircraft carrier into service can upgrade China's thinking on maritime warfare and bring reform to the navy construction model.
Nowadays, as more technologies have been applied in military field, aircraft carrier fleet not only plays a role in the sphere of war, but increasingly serves non-military uses. They can help with anti-terrorism, anti-piracy, safeguarding the security of maritime transportation lines and protecting oversea citizens.
In the foreseeable future, more countries in the world will build their own aircraft carriers, and carrier fleets will play a more important role and take more important tasks.
The author is a senior researcher at the Chinese Naval Research Institute. [email protected] -
Originally posted by Just_do_it_lah:
Singapore need aircraft carrier for F ?
TS need to.....
to boost to the Indoesians and Msians, we have one, you dun have
-
BBC speculating on the timing of the Liaoning handover. Targeted at Japan?
-
i think we need more submarines, more practical.
how about chopper carrier, with refueling capabilities for subs
-
India having problems with its carrier delivery from Russia. Delays prompt unlikely speculation over whether it will bid for UK CVs.
-
Sg will never have Aircraft carrier. No realistic and not economical.