A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
All ships can be sunk. If that's a consideration, no country will ever have a navy. The CVE is merely a more capable combat vessel. The idea of having a CVE has nothing to do with shifting factories to sea but it has a lot to do with economics. Let me put it this way... Option A: Buy 1 sqn of fighters = $5b cost. Net cost $5b. Option B: Trade an airbase for $33b to get 2 CVEs $3b + 2 sqn of fighters $12 b. Net profit $18b. Which would you choose?
-
airbases are good for landing, maintenance of vichle planes and other stuff, training. yes wesee the money, but i think other th our army working with ST people on deisgn procuement of weapons, or selling to foreign alliance countries, i think we should not measure defence expenses on par comparison with profits it can generate for the singapore economy.
-
Minimising expenditure/budget is not the only thing the government is considering when procuring weapons. Our existing airbases will never be demolished to make way for more land. As far as I know, we have sufficient airbases to maintain air superiority over a fixed radius around our nation. 95% chance Singapore won't be increasing more airbases.
troublemaker is right. Airbases aren't just good for landing/takeoffs, easier maintenance, etc. Most importantly airbases are designed to minimise the risk of being a target. They are disperse and aircraft shelters are stored within bunkers, munitions depots are within reach, etc.
I do not have much knowledge about ships, but it has size constraints too. Sad to say, all it needs is probably a torpedo to sink it. Yes it can travel far, but our best F-15SG can make their way to France with the help of KC-135s and other aircraft fuel tankers too.
On the aircraft carrier, there are too many hazards and human factors to consider too. Training will take a long time and also incur a lot of expenses.
-
Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk and then RAF fighters appeared. Sustainability and intercept times. No doubt F-15s and F-16s can travel any where around the world with sufficient stopovers. Its simple math that one can't loiter F-15s/F-16s over a fleet 24/7 that's travelling at 10-15 kts with just 4 KC-135s. That's why CVs are required. An F-15SG fully loaded with CFTs and max external fuel tanks has a ferry range of ~2000nm. That means once it hits 1000nm, it needs to return back. Travelling at 650 kts cruise speed = ~3 hours endurance. A fleet travelling at 15 kts will take 66+ hours to cover 1000nm. That means a single F-15SG has to be over the fleet 66 hours or need 22 refuels. When the figures goes to 2000nm, that's 133+ hours or 44 refuels. Not possible with 4 x KC-135s and that's just to sustain 1 fighter. Its very different for a straight line deployment from Singapore to France. Singapore - Paris is only 10000 km. The F-15SG only needs to be airborne ~8 hours. As to demolishing, that's exactly what happened to the former RAF Kallang (aka Kallang Airport). A CVE does not mean no more Singapore airbases. Why won't there be sufficient airbases in Singapore minus one? RSAF survived well enough without PLAB or CAB until 1981. I can understand why extra runways were required when RSAF operated over 100+ skyhawks in addition to other fighters. Those skyhawks are long gone.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
All ships can be sunk. If that’s a consideration, no country will ever have a navy. The CVE is merely a more capable combat vessel. The idea of having a CVE has nothing to do with shifting factories to sea but it has a lot to do with economics.
Let me put it this way…
Option A: Buy 1 sqn of fighters = $5b cost. Net cost $5b.
Option B: Trade an airbase for $33b to get 2 CVEs $3b + 2 sqn of fighters $12 b. Net profit $18b.
Which would you choose?
Airbase $33b ? - how did you work that out ?
My understaning singapore t3 land cost $1.75b
Changi motorsport hub project 30-year land lease coase sgd $100mStealth airport ?
-
You're not comparing apples to apples. Land cost and land sales are 2 different measurements. Land cost of paya lebar probably cost $XXm or less as this was 70 years ago. Gahmen would not sell land to itself. Using actual public data from the below on actual land sales (leasehold only). http://www.ura.gov.sg/sales/residential/vacantsites.xls Simple math. Assume psm is $11k per sq m. 3 sq km = 3,000,000 sq m. $11k x 3m sq m = $33b. Its a ballpark figure. $11k is realistic imho cos that's based on GFA. Without an airbase, plot ratio can be as high as 3.5 (no more height restriction). That means effective psm is only $3.14k psm. If 5 sq km, then higher. If psm is lower, then total revenue lower but it makes no sense to redevelop 3 sq km into a car-park. This is government revenue, not actual land price by developer. If taking developer price, the knock on effects on GDP would be higher than $33b.
-
I'll throw in more math on the question of whether we have an airbase to spare? Source: www.fas.org/nuke/intro/aircraft/afman32-1123.pdf Workings: Single runway capacity – 40 to 50 IFR movements or 75 VFR movements (pg 30, item 3.4 of attached link). Higher movements if counting parallel runway + emergency runways. RSAF fighter fleet: 24 x F-15SG + 60 x F-16C/D. 10 or more F-15SG based at Mountain Home AFB. Assuming 80% serviceability rate [USAF = 75%] = (24+60-10)*80% = 60 fighters available at any one time. 40 IFR movements x 24 hour = 960 movements = 480 sorties per day. Sorties per day (480 sorties / 60 fighters) = 8 sorties per day [USAF combat experience = 1 per day, F-35A has 3 max sorties per day design specs, F-35B has 4 max sorties per day design specs] Above doesn’t take into account operation of parallel runway, emergency runway or paired take-offs and landings (double the movements). xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Based on the above, a single airbase (eg TAB, PLAB or CAB) should in theory, seen from a sorties perspective, be able to take off the entire RSAF fighter force within a single hour. One airbase can operate the twice the size of the entire fighter fleet for the entire day at 8 times the sortie rate that USAF operates at, not counting redundancy from parallel/emergency runways. The best part is a VSTOL aircraft like the F-35B can make use of other runways (Seletar/Sembawang) which other fixed wing cannot fully utilise (thereby increasing sortie rates further). Where is the loss in security in trading an airbase for a couple of CVEs and a couple of fighter squadrons? End up with better fleet protection, more fighters, more money/less taxes, more living space.
-
Lets put thing in perspective.
Aircraft carrier is a weapon for power projection. Why do we need F15/F16 to loiter in an area 1000nm away? The sinking of the prince of wales and the repulse by land based bombers again prove that an airbase can do the job for our purpose.
An airbase is just another important installation in Singapore defended the whole integrated air defence system. an aircraft carrier is on its own, it has to depend on the escorting surface warships and submarine.
an aircraft carrier can be sunk by a torpedo from submarine, a cruise missle from surface warship and aircraft. Once sunk, bye bye, and the escorting vessels rendered useless!!! a torpedo can't destroy an air base, a cruise missiles can destroy one installation in the airport, not all. So an airbase can be bombed many times, Lim Chu Kang Road, or ECP can be converted into runway, supplies for the airbase can be replenished from nearby facilities.
Don't think we need math to do comparison.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Lets put thing in perspective.
Aircraft carrier is a weapon for power projection. Why do we need F15/F16 to loiter in an area 1000nm away? The sinking of the prince of wales and the repulse by land based bombers again prove that an airbase can do the job for our purpose.
An airbase is just another important installation in Singapore defended the whole integrated air defence system. an aircraft carrier is on its own, it has to depend on the escorting surface warships and submarine.
an aircraft carrier can be sunk by a torpedo from submarine, a cruise missle from surface warship and aircraft. Once sunk, bye bye, and the escorting vessels rendered useless!!! a torpedo can't destroy an air base, a cruise missiles can destroy one installation in the airport, not all. So an airbase can be bombed many times, Lim Chu Kang Road, or ECP can be converted into runway, supplies for the airbase can be replenished from nearby facilities.
Don't think we need math to do comparison.
An escort carrier is a vessel that performs escort duties. The RSAF cannot provide effective air cover and defend SLOC beyond a few hundred nautical miles. Singapore relies on shipping to maintain its economy. Those ships travels from thousands of nautical miles away. Currently the RSN only has frigates capable of performing escort duties. A frigate carries 1 helicopter only and has minimal air defences. A frigate as well as merchant ships can be sunk by torpedoes and aircraft. However, Singapore still needs combat vessels and a navy.
An escort carrier does not mean Singapore does not have airbases. An escort carrier escorts vessels. Unlike a fleet carrier, it it doesn't need to rely on escorting warships. It does however improve air, anti-ship and anti-submarine cover. A torpedo can sink an escort carrier. Singapore, as a maritime nation, needs a navy. RSN operates in seas greater than a few hundred nautical miles from Singapore. Torpedoes and aircraft are more likely to sink the RSN fleet without an escort carrier than with one.
If one can't understand the math, hopefully one can understand the above.
-
if someone strike in an airbase i think still okay can function., but if someone strike ion board a carrier how? especially if the striker starter is the carrier commander?
-
If someone strikes a frigate how? It sinks lah. The idea is to avoid getting it sunk. If RSN can build formidable frigates and even less armed endurance LPDs without getting those sunk, why can't it operate better armed vessels like CVEs? Why risk our sailors?
Why did US build 122 escort carriers in WW2? They could have build tons of airbases (which they did) instead of escort carriers. They could also have build fleet carriers (which they did but just 29) instead of escort carriers.
In any case, this is merely a hypothetical thread. So I'd highlight something more fun to read than my posts: the battle of samar
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-samar6 escort carriers & 7 DD/DE fighting off the entire Japanese fleet (incl Yamato/Musashi).
"In no engagement of its entire history has the United States Navy shown more gallantry, guts and gumption than in those two morning hours between 0730 and 0930 off Samar" — Rear Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison History of United States Naval Operations in World War II Volume XII, Leyte
-
Originally posted by troublemaker2005:
if someone strike in an airbase i think still okay can function., but if someone strike ion board a carrier how? especially if the striker starter is the carrier commander?
You know something called X Y Z compartment and damage control?
And actually our frigate can operate up to 2 helo at a given point.
-
Originally posted by troublemaker2005:
if someone strike in an airbase i think still okay can function., but if someone strike ion board a carrier how? especially if the striker starter is the carrier commander?
sorry my english not good. what i meant was' if someone go 'on strike'. ahhahasorry i dont know english too good lah 'aku dadah makan taohu'. hahha
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
An escort carrier is a vessel that performs escort duties. The RSAF cannot provide effective air cover and defend SLOC beyond a few hundred nautical miles. Singapore relies on shipping to maintain its economy. Those ships travels from thousands of nautical miles away. Currently the RSN only has frigates capable of performing escort duties. A frigate carries 1 helicopter only and has minimal air defences. A frigate as well as merchant ships can be sunk by torpedoes and aircraft. However, Singapore still needs combat vessels and a navy.
An escort carrier does not mean Singapore does not have airbases. An escort carrier escorts vessels. Unlike a fleet carrier, it it doesn't need to rely on escorting warships. It does however improve air, anti-ship and anti-submarine cover. A torpedo can sink an escort carrier. Singapore, as a maritime nation, needs a navy. RSN operates in seas greater than a few hundred nautical miles from Singapore. Torpedoes and aircraft are more likely to sink the RSN fleet without an escort carrier than with one.
If one can't understand the math, hopefully one can understand the above.
who are we trying to escort, commercial vessels sailing via singapore or the RSN? Commercial vessels sail from Europe to China and Japan and use Singapore as transhipment hub, we need to escort them from europe huh? we need a carrier to protect our frigates, missiles gun boats and submarine?
How far do we need to project our forces? we work in cooperation with the navies all along international sea lanes and through international diplomacy we keep the sea lanes open for international trades, RSN don't need to cover thousand of miles.
You need more than just math to understand F=MA. how about an carrier to evacuate singaporean in china just in case we have problem with them for sacking the Chinese bus drivers? the mathematicians will ask, how much is the value of those Singaporean now living and travelling in china, may be it is justifiable to build 3 carriers for that purpose, surely these people are worth something in $$$?
-
i am not sure about how our fighters and pilots train with our alliance overseas conterparts. but if we have not a landing takeoff program with US or allied carriers, we can start doing so. If we have maybemore extensive or advance traingin can be incorpotraed. if one day we need toever lenad on a carrier, at least pilots have expereience and adequete trainings.
somemore our ceena air craft carrier very proud teir fighter jets can land and take off on a carrier leh.
-
Originally posted by troublemaker2005:
sorry my english not good. what i meant was' if someone go 'on strike'. ahhahasorry i dont know english too good lah 'aku dadah makan taohu'. hahha
that is mutiny, punishable by death.
-
can someone explain to me why weasel1962 is using URA - PSM price to calculate rent for airfield - URA figures are indoor rental rate for shopping centers and commerical hubs.
Have anyone see airbase build inside shopping center or inside a business hub - pls let me know.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
can someone explain to me why weasel1962 is using URA - PSM price to calculate rent for airfield - URA figures are indoor rental rate for shopping centers and commerical hubs.
Have anyone see airbase build inside shopping center or inside a business hub - pls let me know.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
can someone explain to me why weasel1962 is using URA - PSM price to calculate rent for airfield - URA figures are indoor rental rate for shopping centers and commerical hubs.
Have anyone see airbase build inside shopping center or inside a business hub - pls let me know.
I'll speak slowww..llyyy...(or can just read previous pages...
If the RSAF were willing to give up an airbase, the Government can sell the land on the airbase to fund things like more aircraft and even CVEs......thus making CVEs "affordable". The Government doesn't sell land to rent airbase or plant oil palm. In Singapore, the Government sells land to developers to build things like condos, hotels and malls....hope you can understand or maybe I tyyyyppppeee slllooowwwerrr?
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
I'll speak slowww..llyyy...(or can just read previous pages...
If the RSAF were willing to give up an airbase, the Government can sell the land on the airbase to fund things like more aircraft and even CVEs......thus making CVEs "affordable". The Government doesn't sell land to rent airbase or plant oil palm. In Singapore, the Government sells land to developers to build things like condos, hotels and malls....hope you can understand or maybe I tyyyyppppeee slllooowwwerrr?
Thank you for speaking slowwwly !!!
Ok let say RSAF - give up an airbase ? then we go for CVEs.
Hello - where to land our G550 , C-130 , tankers , F-15s, F-5 & F-16s ?
what about visiting C-17, C-141 .......? -
That's why I keep repeating. There are many airbases in Singapore. Give up one still got enough runways to field the entire RSAF x 2. Cheers!
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
That’s why I keep repeating. There are many airbases in Singapore. Give up one still got enough runways to field the entire RSAF x 2.
Cheers!
Most expressways in Singapore are designed to have an alternative runways for the RSAF in the event of when all the airbases in Singapore are attacked and destroyed. The light posts along the expressways can be taken down for airplanes to land...e.g East Coast Park Expressway etc...In the 80s RSAF had conducted air exercises for fighter planes to land on ECP expressway and it was successful. -
i thnk better not have aircraft carrier lah. later NSF and regualrs pay get cut.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
That’s why I keep repeating. There are many airbases in Singapore. Give up one still got enough runways to field the entire RSAF x 2.
Cheers!
we have too many airbases? operational consideration or economic consideration?
we can afford CVE, without selling any airbases!
there must be strategic or operational consideration for national defence, but getting money to buy a toy.
-
Paya Lebar airport used to handle hundreds of airliners and over 50,000 aircraft movements a year. Does the RSAF even fly 1/10th that amount every year? Once the F-5s retire which won't be long, RSAF won't be as big as it used to be. 70+ fighters (14 F-15s - 10 based in MHAFB, 60 F-16s) won't need that many airbases to function efficiently. The F-50s and KC-135s are already based at Changi. Only 14 more transports/Awacs to base. The F-35s aren't cheap. Canada already estimates 65 F-35As will cost C$30billion (S$37b) over 36 years service lifetime. That means a sqn of F-35s could cost as much as S$12b each. Singapore can't even pay its bus drivers enough but we take the easy way out by raising bus fares. Sure, all these toys are as "affordable" as $2000 psf condos or $100k COE cars. How much additional fare will need to go up to pay for new fighters?