A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
Originally posted by GamerAtHeart:
Sg will never have Aircraft carrier. No realistic and not economical.
Is that before or after reading post 1 on page 1? -
Going one full circle, Royal Navy will likely maintain 2 carriers since only extra GBP70m annual cost, says British defense secretary. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121101/DEFREG01/311010003/Hammond-Keep-Both-Carriers-Royal-Navy-Service?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE Each CV will carry 12 F-35B and surge to 36 or more when needed. "In extreme circumstances, and given a little notice, it would be possible to have both carriers available at once, he said."
-
Interesting article on relevance of China's aircraft carrier and strategy http://csis.org/files/publication/Pac1272.pdf
-
Originally posted by GamerAtHeart:
Sg will never have Aircraft carrier. No realistic and not economical.
Sg will never need to have aircraft carrier. what the edurance 160 is a - multi-role support ship.
But 2004 tsunami, patrol in the gulf and anti pirate patrol have shown - What we need is multi-role support ship.It can in use in disaster situation with hospital faclities on board - function as a floating hospital.
With a bigger helicopter deck - support more helicopters , have the choice of landing a sizable force via helicopter or landing craft at one go. -
Singapore really don't need an aircraft carrier.
It is not just one aircraft carrier, but it need one whole fleet to protect it, and many aircrafts to equip the aircraft. It also need at least 2-3 carrier, because usually 1 is under maintenance, and the other 1-2 will be in service or training. Then we have to build the port for the carrier.
All these add up together, will be a huge financial burden for taxpayers every year. If Singapore want to have airforce and navy at remote location and can survive first wave of massive attack, a cheaper and smarter alternative is to lease a land in Thailand and station our army there.
Having such powerful and highly mobile army will also make Singapore no excuse not to support US when war breakout.
Then the foreign investor will worry reduce investment in the region, because chances of Singapore involving in a war will be higher.
Some countries will worry about our intention and how we will use this force, they will fund Thailand in building the Kra canal. Then our geographic advantages will be gone after that. -
Originally posted by justdoit77:
Singapore really don't need an aircraft carrier.
It is not just one aircraft carrier, but it need one whole fleet to protect it, and many aircrafts to equip the aircraft. It also need at least 2-3 carrier, because usually 1 is under maintenance, and the other 1-2 will be in service or training. Then we have to build the port for the carrier.
All these add up together, will be a huge financial burden for taxpayers every year. If Singapore want to have airforce and navy at remote location and can survive first wave of massive attack, a cheaper and smarter alternative is to lease a land in Thailand and station our army there.
Having such powerful and highly mobile army will also make Singapore no excuse not to support US when war breakout.
Then the foreign investor will worry reduce investment in the region, because chances of Singapore involving in a war will be higher.
Some countries will worry about our intention and how we will use this force, they will fund Thailand in building the Kra canal. Then our geographic advantages will be gone after that.Good points. The counter argument is as follows.
(a) How do many navies survive with just 1 carrier e.g. China, India, Brazil, Spain, Italy etc. Can navies live without 2 or more?
(b) Does the CV need that many escort vessels (per Spain, Italy and Brazil's experience) vis a vis size of current RSN? In WW2, carriers were used as escort vessels (CVE or CVL) rather than fleet carriers. CVE were used to escort merchant vessels. CVL to escort/supplement fleet carriers.
(c) As to cost, can RSAF save cost by reducing foreign air training cost (using CVE or CVL for training in international waters where Singapore does not get restricted by air space)? How much will a CVE cost as opposed to an Endurance 160? Can RSAF save even more cost if this reduces airbase land area instead of just buying standard fixed wing fighters?
(d) From a doctrine perspectives, doesn't Singapore have to protect SLOC? If so, why wouldn't a CVE be more effective than current vessels?
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Good points. The counter argument is as follows.
(a) How do many navies survive with just 1 carrier e.g. China, India, Brazil, Spain, Italy etc. Can navies live without 2 or more?
(b) Does the CV need that many escort vessels (per Spain, Italy and Brazil's experience) vis a vis size of current RSN? In WW2, carriers were used as escort vessels (CVE or CVL) rather than fleet carriers. CVE were used to escort merchant vessels. CVL to escort/supplement fleet carriers.
(c) As to cost, can RSAF save cost by reducing foreign air training cost (using CVE or CVL for training in international waters where Singapore does not get restricted by air space)? How much will a CVE cost as opposed to an Endurance 160? Can RSAF save even more cost if this reduces airbase land area instead of just buying standard fixed wing fighters?
(d) From a doctrine perspectives, doesn't Singapore have to protect SLOC? If so, why wouldn't a CVE be more effective than current vessels?
a) They can survive even without any carrier. But if they invest in only 1, they will not have a continuously on duty carrier on the sea. Their enemy will choose to attack the weakest link, wait till the carrier return to port then attack the target on sea. Or directly attack the carrier when it is defenseless during repair and maintenance.
b) Carrier is powerful because of its aircrafts can reach very far. But it still has many blindspot and loophole from water surface, land, undersea, mine etc. That's when the fleet is needed to protect it. Carrier is too expensive with so many equipments and only son of many families on it, so the risk of being hit must be minimized.
One problem I can think of is, if the war is with Malaysia or Indonesia, it will be difficult to go through Malacca strait because the strait can be as narrow as 2.7km. Their aircraft and missiles can reach from any angle anytime without much time for us to react.c) I not sure about the cost. There are many countries after purchasing and using the first carrier, then realized how fast it can burn the cash. Some afford to buy but can't afford to use it.
Singapore SLOC is not under any threatening. In fact, it is other countries SLOC that comes into the picture in this region.
Singapore really don't need carrier. I think it is US that hope Singapore to buy their retired 2nd hand downgraded carrier to fund their economy recovery. They have no money and credibility to fight more war so they want Singapore to foot the bill...
Seriously as a small country, we shouldn't side any power, we should be neutral so both sides will try to make us happy. If we choose to side one and offend the other, singapore will lose all the bargaining power to the so called "friend" at the same time create more enemy. Really not worth it. -
i agree we don;t need aicaft carrier. if want just invest in one or get an improved version to ferry combat helicopters. if they set aside the money for one or two carriers, might as well invest them to make or get more new weapons.
-
Hi all, just to share some facts here.
We have adequate airbases located at strategic locations all over Singapore. The RSAF is swift enough to respond to any possible air threats. The RSN have multiple LSTs capable of carrying medium sized helicopters. Our Navy maybe small but its capabilities are highly recognised by US Forces too.
An aircraft carrier doesn't go out alone in the sea. But with a fleet of destroyers and cruisers, and stealth submarines to protect it.
Having an aircraft carrier is not only a waste of resources, but we also don't have the capability to power it. An aircraft carrier requires 5000 sea and air crew. Even if we combine both RSN and RSAF together, they don't even have that much manpower in current existing units and squadrons.
Our government has no intentions to procure any aircraft carriers and most likely in the next decade as well.
-
1) A CV can be crewed by as few as 243 (eg Juan Carlos). No need 5,000 kind of size. A CVE operates as a vessel to escort others rather than having something escort it.
2) Each air base takes up as much as 3-5 sq km of land in land scarce Singapore. Property prices are at record levels. 3-5sq km can fetch S$10-33 billion worth! That's based on older Government land sale prices, not updated yet. Singaporeans are paying a high price to keep those bases. Is there a better, more efficient way to use that land?
-
anybody care to give a scenario in which an aircraft carrier can be more effective in protecting singapore, compared to we are doing now?
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
1) A CV can be crewed by as few as 243 (eg Juan Carlos). No need 5,000 kind of size. A CVE operates as a vessel to escort others rather than having something escort it.
2) Each air base takes up as much as 3-5 sq km of land in land scarce Singapore. Property prices are at record levels. 3-5sq km can fetch S$10-33 billion worth! That's based on older Government land sale prices, not updated yet. Singaporeans are paying a high price to keep those bases. Is there a better, more efficient way to use that land?
Weasel - the CVE is too large and lack needed manoeuvre, need to defence itself of other from submarines , air or sea attack .
Also it is too cost to have a CVE - escort ships .
Air base still a lot time cheap and easier to operate then CV
A CVE - so small the number of planes even if launch for strike will do little damage. It is still better of launching missile from frigate at them instead.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
anybody care to give a scenario in which an aircraft carrier can be more effective in protecting singapore, compared to we are doing now?
not that i can think of. but sending some of our men over to US or our alliance foreign country to train in an aircraft carrier can be a start. the knowledge and experiece going through it will be invaluable.the reason of geting one will then depends on 'when', 'why' and 'how'.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
Weasel - the CVE is too large and lack needed manoeuvre, need to defence itself of other from submarines , air or sea attack .
Also it is too cost to have a CVE - escort ships .
Air base still a lot time cheap and easier to operate then CV
A CVE - so small the number of planes even if launch for strike will do little damage. It is still better of launching missile from frigate at them instead.
Air base is not cheap in terms of opportunity cost as land is not cheap in Singapore. Maintaining 3-5 sq km also not cheap. Air base also = fixed target. Land-based fighters = limited range.
A CVE is not too large and not too small. It serves a different purpose compared to fleet carriers. Fleet carriers are common knowledge, less so CVEs. Google "escort carriers" or its predecessor "catapult armed merchantman" and how those operate. These were followed by the US sea control ship's doctrine (which morphed into the US amphibs which don't carry many fighters either). CVEs are generally useful for large merchant fleets. The capability of a CVE will far outweigh the Formidable frigates in protecting a merchant fleet.
As to cost, the Juan Carlos cost the Spanish navy US$600m. The 2 scorpene submarines cost the Malaysian navy RM$3.4 billion.
The RSAF is not that big nor is anyone suggesting to base the entire RSAF on board ships. There will still be airbases in Singapore however why restrict SAF to just the little island? In the falklands, 2 x CVLs operating just 28 harrier fighters defended the British fleet when RN destroyers and frigates couldn't. Fighters today eg F-35B have far greater capability than those 80s/90s eg Harriers.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
1) A CV can be crewed by as few as 243 (eg Juan Carlos). No need 5,000 kind of size. A CVE operates as a vessel to escort others rather than having something escort it.
2) Each air base takes up as much as 3-5 sq km of land in land scarce Singapore. Property prices are at record levels. 3-5sq km can fetch S$10-33 billion worth! That's based on older Government land sale prices, not updated yet. Singaporeans are paying a high price to keep those bases. Is there a better, more efficient way to use that land?
Carrier is never meant to replace land based airport for saving of land space.
Because the carrier and the fleet needs a big port and special facilities for maintenance, end up occupying more land.
If the price of land is an issue, they wouldn't have made the land based airport to be so much bigger than carrier.
In terms of security, carrier and its port is at the shore which is near to neighbouring country, not very safe. But land based airport can be placed at strategic, yet cheap and safe location. -
Originally posted by justdoit77:
Carrier is never meant to replace land based airport for saving of land space.
Because the carrier and the fleet needs a big port and special facilities for maintenance, end up occupying more land.
If the price of land is an issue, they wouldn't have made the land based airport to be so much bigger than carrier.
In terms of security, carrier and its port is at the shore which is near to neighbouring country, not very safe. But land based airport can be placed at strategic, yet cheap and safe location.Changi Naval base can dock a 5000+ pax nimitz class CVN and accompanying fleet but we need more space for a single CVE? Somehow I don't think so.
Recent image of Changi Naval base with the said CVN
The price (and availability) of land was not an issue when our air bases were built 50-70+ years ago. Today, any Singaporean will tell you land prices and availability are an issue. Where in Singapore can a land based airport be placed strategically safe and cheap? The latest RSAF runway (CAB) is just 1km from the naval base. Not many places left for a 3-5 sq km air base. A runway can't move. A CVE can.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Air base is not cheap in terms of opportunity cost as land is not cheap in Singapore. Maintaining 3-5 sq km also not cheap. Air base also = fixed target. Land-based fighters = limited range.
A CVE is not too large and not too small. It serves a different purpose compared to fleet carriers. Fleet carriers are common knowledge, less so CVEs. Google "escort carriers" or its predecessor "catapult armed merchantman" and how those operate. These were followed by the US sea control ship's doctrine (which morphed into the US amphibs which don't carry many fighters either). CVEs are generally useful for large merchant fleets. The capability of a CVE will far outweigh the Formidable frigates in protecting a merchant fleet.
As to cost, the Juan Carlos cost the Spanish navy US$600m. The 2 scorpene submarines cost the Malaysian navy RM$3.4 billion.
The RSAF is not that big nor is anyone suggesting to base the entire RSAF on board ships. There will still be airbases in Singapore however why restrict SAF to just the little island? In the falklands, 2 x CVLs operating just 28 harrier fighters defended the British fleet when RN destroyers and frigates couldn't. Fighters today eg F-35B have far greater capability than those 80s/90s eg Harriers.
airbase is still lot cheaper then CV. Air base maybe fixed target - but they are hard to knock out and put out of operations. Land-based fighters = limited range ??? Our F-16 & F-15 already best fighter planes in range - also with refueling planes . You look up the range of harrier then come tell us about range.
Where you want to go - sail all the way to some where to fly some planes - tax payer money.
You know why the world the financial crisis ? 1 is the bankers , 2 is people like you who want - go build CV with expensive planes - sail it 1/2 way around the world, go steer up trouble and waste all the $ then country become poor !!! Why need enemy when have you screw your own.
-
3-5sq km of prime real estate = cheap? Do you guys stay in Singapore? Seen the newspapers today on price of industrial land? Not to mention suburban condos going at $1500 or more per square foot. An airbase redevelopment will yield as much as $33 billion, generate GDP growth plus property taxes (also going up 5-13% in 2013) every year.
That compared to the cost of a CVE that could cost as low as $600 million. No one is suggesting going around the world to make trouble. See post 1 plus the need to understand what a CVE does (as opposed to a fleet carrier).
btw, airbases need expensive fighters too. Like the US$3+b we spent on a sqn of F-15s or even more for future F-35As. Also, 4x KC-135s will not be able to maintain 24/7 cover over a trailing fleet at 15kts more than 1000nm away.
-
planes can be parked underground, provided not fuel.
-
how to compare the value of an airbase with an industrial land? may be we should train our recruits in multi storey computer game building and turn tekong into another jurong island?
is it really a choice for us to develop paya lebar aribase into a housing estate and tenga airbase into an industrial estate, and replace them with 2 aircraft carriers? money wise it is feasible, but ...think again...
cannot value everything with $$$$$$$$.....
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
how to compare the value of an airbase with an industrial land? may be we should train our recruits in multi storey computer game building and turn tekong into another jurong island?
is it really a choice for us to develop paya lebar aribase into a housing estate and tenga airbase into an industrial estate, and replace them with 2 aircraft carriers? money wise it is feasible, but ...think again...
cannot value everything with $$$$$$$$.....
Let's not be kwa chang. No one is suggesting turning Tekong into Jurong Island (though computerised training of not only recruits but NSmen/regulars are becoming more prevalent). Defence does not come with zero cost. Scarce resources = resource allocation required. That's economics 101. An airbase (and an airport) comes with cost-benefit or we'd still be using Paya Lebar as our international airport. The reality is that number of aircraft squadrons and fighters are declining. Again simple economics due to increasing aircraft capability and increased unit cost. However, same number of airbases maintained. Basing options should be assessed for efficiency. If economics not considered, that's where you get suggestions of multiple CVNs (crewed by non-striking FT). Airplane design is evolving. SLOC defence needs are changing. Defence costs are going up. I would expect Gahmen to managed defence budget carefully and not just pay $billions to buy new fighter sqns or under-utilise facilities. -
Originally posted by troublemaker2005:
planes can be parked underground, provided not fuel.
Good idea except that it cost $billion to dig that hole. Costs benchmark examples? MRT/Jurong oil caverns. And it would have to be deep indeed to avoid a cheap BLU-28 or KAB-1500LG-Pr-E or they just whack the entrance/exit. Then end up with zero fighters on a big airbase. Might as well just get a CV. At least its safer when its out at sea.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Good idea except that it cost $billion to dig that hole. Costs benchmark examples? MRT/Jurong oil caverns. And it would have to be deep indeed to avoid a cheap BLU-28 or KAB-1500LG-Pr-E or they just whack the entrance/exit. Then end up with zero fighters on a big airbase. Might as well just get a CV. At least its safer when its out at sea.
i think money is needed to tunnel, but design no need very super. maybe just accessiblity to rapir and hangar facilities. as for entry we can have mmultiple. the main idea is to have two in series. one major access is reinforced, underground. while the multiple entry exit ones are light not armor and also can be manually operated or easily cleared, position on ground level. i think we have underground ammo sotrage too. land space in constraint so we can really go underground for this type of military facility. -
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
how to compare the value of an airbase with an industrial land? may be we should train our recruits in multi storey computer game building and turn tekong into another jurong island?
is it really a choice for us to develop paya lebar aribase into a housing estate and tenga airbase into an industrial estate, and replace them with 2 aircraft carriers? money wise it is feasible, but ...think again...
cannot value everything with $$$$$$$$.....
nothing beats training in real life forested nature location. tekong is good and off the main island, suited for military trainging.as for 2 aircraft carrier. i don't want foreign talents to mend them anyway - they can have excuse no manpower again, no ne wanna do army jobs again
-
Hi weasel If building a carrier vs airbase is for economic reason such as saving land , why there is no company or government ever move their office, factory, school or whatever to sea? Furthermore, we are putting all the aircrafts and lifes on the floating platform that can be sunk by just 1 highly explosive bomb. Having a carrier will not make Singapore a strong country, but will rather weaken it. What makes Singapore strong is a strong economy, good relationship with other countries, strategic geographic location, stable society. If we buy one carrier and the necessary fleets etc, the first 3 will be damaged, and soon will cause social unrest.