Originally posted by weasel1962:... 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?
I agree fully that raising bus fares is an easy way out for the minister, the more difficult way out is to cut the ministers salaries
the real problem is that the bus drivers deserve higher salaries but they don't get it, the ministers don't deserve the high salaries but they take it.
what has that got to do with fighter or CVE?
Originally posted by weasel1962:If you look at the defence budget, the question is whether there are ways to generate more income, change how procurement works and manage defence $ better instead of merely think of defence expenditure as a straight line cost?
That’s the same argument with the CVE. One can either look at the CVE or new fighters as merely extra $$$ spent or go back to the first question on page 23. Its a way of showing that CVEs can be more than affordable due to the trade-offs….or we can stick to the usual strategy of just pay more for defence.
defence is not an industry, if you want to generate income, tell mindef to invest in plan to turn bomb shells into chopping knife, rent out the amphibious crafts to carry tourists around the islands in Singapore, use helicopters to give singaporean a birdeyes view of marina bay and charging them $500 per ride......
Originally posted by sgdiehard:defence is not an industry, if you want to generate income, tell mindef to invest in plan to turn bomb shells into chopping knife, rent out the amphibious crafts to carry tourists around the islands in Singapore, use helicopters to give singaporean a birdeyes view of marina bay and charging them $500 per ride......
Defence is not an industry? Someone forgot to tell Singapore Technologies....
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Defence is not an industry? Someone forgot to tell Singapore Technologies....
you are out of context! Does Singapore Technologies come under Mindef??
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!
Paya Lebar is use for freight airlines also, also need to use for emergency to ease traffic for changi.
Thus i don't think you can reduce much.
Paya Lebar Airbase is also used for delivering commercial aircraft for maintenance/servicing at the nearby ST Aerospace.
What I can say is, the government will definitely not close down any of these 3 airbases for the next 10-20 years.
The F-35s are currently still in prototype/testing phase and there's a lot of commotion going on with Lockheed Martin and the US govt regarding their funding and expenditure. It's kinda stuck right now so don't expect them to deliver so soon.
if singapore really purchase a aircraft carrier, i die die got to convince or con myself. change citizenship.. something is very wrong somewhere..
Originally posted by weasel1962:Not missing the point. Its called segregation of responsibilities. Actually, DSTA is the party responsible for implementing defence technology plans, acquiring defence materiel and developing defence infrastructure. Defence infrastructure is important to Singapore. The local defence industry partner is Singapore Technologies.
There is no such thing called segregation of responsibilities!! Singapore's defence budget FY 2011/12 is a record $12.08 billion, 22% of our total FY2012 operating expenditure, about 5% of GDP. ST and other defence related industries are separate entities. These companies are responsible to their shareholders for what they do, if they don't make profit, they close!!
Defence budget is allocated by the government for the defence of singapore, they use national budget that comes from taxes, from the people, not from profit. It is their duty to be prodent in how they spend, not how much they can get by selling airbase. If they sell paya lebar airbase, or tekong, the money goes right back to the government!
Originally posted by sgdiehard:There is no such thing called segregation of responsibilities!! Singapore's defence budget FY 2011/12 is a record $12.08 billion, 22% of our total FY2012 operating expenditure, about 5% of GDP. ST and other defence related industries are separate entities. These companies are responsible to their shareholders for what they do, if they don't make profit, they close!!
Defence budget is allocated by the government for the defence of singapore, they use national budget that comes from taxes, from the people, not from profit. It is their duty to be prodent in how they spend, not how much they can get by selling airbase. If they sell paya lebar airbase, or tekong, the money goes right back to the government!
Actually, there is segregation, otherwise why need so many ministries? MOF is responsible for Government budget. Personnally, I know MOF and Mindef works very closely on defence expenditure. Every ministry will have to provide a budget. If you think facilities management don't come under DSTA, think again. Infrastructure management comes under systems management. New camp etc all need money. Old camp gets demolished get redeveloped. Last one I can think of was Seletar.
Originally posted by Warwolf:Paya Lebar Airbase is also used for delivering commercial aircraft for maintenance/servicing at the nearby ST Aerospace.
What I can say is, the government will definitely not close down any of these 3 airbases for the next 10-20 years.
The F-35s are currently still in prototype/testing phase and there's a lot of commotion going on with Lockheed Martin and the US govt regarding their funding and expenditure. It's kinda stuck right now so don't expect them to deliver so soon.
I still don't think PLAB is fully utilised. Emergency runway probably gets invoked at most once a year (and there are lots of alternative commercial emergency runways in the region.). As to ST maintenance/servicing, I don't see much difficulty to shift those ops to other airbases. Most of the freight ops goes out of Changi/Seletar. Agree that Government, particularly the RSAF, will not lightly give up any of the airbases. Its easier just to budget $XX billions for new aircraft acquisition.
Canada has just audited numbers to suggest 65 F-35As will cost C$44.8b (S$55.55b) for a 42 year service life or S$855m per F-35A. That's how much more SG taxpayers will just have to fork out per option A if we ignore option B. Pay and pay loh.
if airport or airfield is so expensive, why not create a deck that allows aircraft to land just like those on aircraft carriers? Cheaper with smaller footprint mah?
Originally posted by weasel1962:The US did consider in 2001 a simple offshore deck called the mobile offshore base (I think this was mentioned on pg 1, google for details). The 2km stretch would cost US$5b to US$8b.
How can that be so expensive... is it the acquisition of the land is expensive?
China approves research funding for nuclear reactors that may power aircraft carriers
http://www.ptinews.com/news/3405961_China-approves-funding-for-nuclear-powered-ships-
News is not new as a CVN has been suggested under a type 089 project since 2007. Indeed, China was then suggested to be intending to build 1-2 Varyag sized carriers under a type 085 project by 2015. LHD projects have also been suggested under type 075 projects. A research project on nuclear propulsion is expected to take several years to complete. Some analysts have suggested that the study may be completed earlier if the propulsion system is based on existing submarine reactors (possibly multiple units hooked up together). imho, submarine nuclear reactors generate a lot less electricity than CVNs as the usage patterns are different. In the context of increasing china oil imports, the move to nuclear propulsion (even for commercial marine applications where supertankers can be as big or larger than CVNs) is not surprising.
I think we will have a carrier by 2020..... probably a LHA with amphibous assault insertion capabilities. That is why we start buying F35B and more Seahawks following US doctrine of operating combat out of ships.
Should be able to carry a mix of 36 F35B and Seahawks....
very good, burn, burn, burn all those tax payer money..dun care whether it is pap or wp.. all those dirty notes, all those billions..
Originally posted by Tcsaaa:very good, burn, burn, burn all those tax payer money..dun care whether it is pap or wp.. all those dirty notes, all those billions..
清明节�囖�
burn, burn burn all those $.. burn until the time we become like USA.. then, hopefully, everybody will acknowledge that burning of the hundreds of billions, the wrongful burning has been wrong, donkey years ago.. F16, F15, whatever Fs, apaches, submarines, frigates, battle tanks n whatever technologys that burns billions.. the more they burn, the more u pay $..