A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
PLAB operates 3 F-5 sqns and 1 C-130 sqn (10? a/c). However, the 3 F-5 sqns only operate 40+ F-5s which is actually only ~2 sqn's worth.
TAB operates 2 F-16 sqns and CAB 1 F-16 and later 1 F-15. If you read my past post, I carefully mentioned fighter sqns not total sqns. Some sqn eg the E-2s are small sqn sized.
Let's say the F-5s as planned are replaced by 2 sqns of F-35s. 1 sqn is deployed on board a vessel. That makes 1 sqn of F-35s and 1 more of C-130 to be relocated.
It would depend on whether TAB/CAB, seletar or sembawng can take 1 more sqn each. Otherwise, a new land base (but smaller esp if F-35Bs are acquired) will probably be needed. As mentioned, this will need a more detailed cost-benefit analysis. My guess is that TAB/CAB particularly Changi probably has sufficient capacity to base more a/c but I don't have access to operational fact/info to determine that for sure. I would agree overbasing will have some impact on sortie rates but to claim that it would be overbasing without some factual basis would not be objective.
wrt CVBG, it really depends on the design of the ship itself and the scope of ops that will determine how much resupply, if any, is needed. As to escort numbers, again, it is again dependent on tactics. I think the number is normally 4 for spain and as mentioned, the Spanish fleet isn't that far off in numbers from the RSN. Perhaps it might be useful to understand how the Spanish actually deploy their CV. Lessons can also be learnt from how other navies eg Argentina used their CVs.
-
i am just wondering how effective to operate a carrier as a means for forward defence within the region. Given the constraint of SG location at the tip of narrow strait and busy South China Sea with overlapping claims of islands between regional states. Maybe land hopping base with regional friends might still be more effectives.
Of course in recent years we see RSN operate in the Gulf and now patrol against Somalia pirates. Unless SG sees that an outside region as a permanent threats or potential threats to SEA region and feel the needs for deterrence. But that would still need to work with regional partners. I don't see a regional defence structure taking place at all.
-
Further to my previous post.
I think one possible option is shared services eg procuring fleet replenishment services from third parties (whether commercial or other militaries).
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34330
In the case of US, there would be economies of scale as the munitions are the same.
Fleet replenishment is probably needed only for extended ops. In peacetime, CV endurance may be sufficient without replenishment (no munitions resupply required, and short range means no fuel resupply needed). Fleet replenishment for extended ops is an issue not just for a CV but also the FFGs.
Configuring the endurance to perform some buddy fleet replenishment is also another possibility.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
i am just wondering how effective to operate a carrier as a means for forward defence within the region. Given the constraint of SG location at the tip of narrow strait and busy South China Sea with overlapping claims of islands between regional states. Maybe land hopping base with regional friends might still be more effectives.
Of course in recent years we see RSN operate in the Gulf and now patrol against Somalia pirates. Unless SG sees that an outside region as a permanent threats or potential threats to SEA region and feel the needs for deterrence. But that would still need to work with regional partners. I don't see a regional defence structure taking place at all.
The deployment of RSN assets to the Gulf of Aden, participation in RimPac exercises in the pacific, acquisition of blue-water operational FFGs suggests that RSN has a global definition in respect of its SLOC defence. In effect, I would presume RSN already practices forward defence in its operations (and the case of piracy ops, exercises, these are already conducted within joint/regional structures).
Our regional friends have not exactly been very forthcoming wrt to a/c basing. An issue that a CV operation would sidestep
-
yes, .... when the manpower from the whole air force and navy combine together, and all of them stay onboard and keep the operation running... however, doesnt its the same as PUTTING ALL EGG IN ONE BASKET??
-
Originally posted by sgstars: the TS's purpose is to explore the viability of a F35B-light carrier concept in the very long run when maintaining land-based airbases might be unfeasible in land scarce singapore. not to lobby or make policy recommendations i think. im sure any adequately qualified procurement/policy maker would have half a brain and wouldnt even consider threads or forum postings some form of legitimitazation or political currency to spend, nor even factor it into their decision making process.
It'd be nice if we got realistic. if we do get a light carrier, with no little to no coastline to defend, how do we justify such a carrier in the short to medium term ? just look at the HYUGA class of the JMSDF as a case in point. one "helicopter destroyer" and all that political controversy.
your points are unrealistic to begin with
1) its either a complement of fixed, or rotary wing or a complement of both. but numbers are finite. deck space is premium space. having F35Bs or STOVL aircraft operating will take up precious top deck space the helos need to land on and hangar space. i.e its probably more efficient to have something like 12 helos or 8 F35Bs rather than 6 helos and 3 F35Bs. you cant cut it either way unless you want to upsize the ship. and it wouldnt really fit into a light carrier definition after that.
STOVL aircraft are likely to have a higher munitions and fuel load, that will entail significantly more capacity and if built to mil-spec steel, significant cost increases, not to mention the air-wing maintainence and crew.
2) sure, under what sea state conditions can helicopters be effectively deployed, recovered and operated? do we have several thousand miles of EEZ to patrol and protect or do we have a 2000NM coastline ? already, what we have for our waters is overkill.
an oft overabused statistic is that singapore's "amphibuous capacity" is one of the highest in the world if compared to a ship to population ratio.
3) what amphibuous missions are we talking about ? what redland is there to fight ? how are your SAF troops going to mount an amphibuous assault without being within range of MLRS fire ?
if the carrier / whatever exists at that point, is to stay safe, it has to be out of MLRS range at the minimum. that may need OTH force projection capability. with the number of helos currently avaliable, can we do that ? can we upkeep a logistics chain from that distance ? are there enough landing craft to operate from a ship to shore at that kinda distance after accounting for attrition and equipment failure ? do we currently have any amphibuous armor assets that could support a ship-to-shore assault ?
unlikely SAF can ever develop a full and proper expeditionary capacity. limited amphibuous support yes. amphibuous warfare/ MEU style invasion against enemy held territory, unlikely.
4) still space constraints. UAV crew = strain on shipboard bandwith/communication requirements. the same problem as mentioned in 1) still remains. its a tradeoff. u can either have X quantity of UAV or Y quantity of F35Bs but only X-5 UAVs + Y-4 F35Bs if you use them together.dont look at the chakri naubet. its a bad example to look at as she rarely leaves port (or so from what ive read). the HYUGA class will be interesting to observe how she complements the KONGO class AEGIS cruisers and joint JMSDF-US 7th fleet (PACCOM) exercises
Points taken; I admit that I neglected to consider the details.
To skeptics: Of course something like this is quite strange to consider. However, it's fun, and this is just a forum, after all, y'know? It's interesting that the TS has proposed an unconventional solution.
I guess we need to be clear. Are we talking about a floating platform, a seagoing ship, or what?
With regards to your points, sgstars, (for the sake of debate) I feel that each can be overcome in its own time, but as you've mentioned, it'd need a lot of resources. But they've been overcome before. I don't think it's impossible, it's merely a question of 'should we'?
Well, now that you bring these points up, and after reading the thread, I have to admit the good that we'd gain from getting a 'carrier' can be solved in a less provocative manner, though, as we're doing now with overseas basing, LSTs as helicopter bases and the like. Sticking to what we know gives predictable results...
PS: yeah, the Chakri Narubet hardly leaves port, I know, but it's an illustration of what can go wrong.
-
miss the topic for a day, and the fire burns...
just wanna clarify my position.
i DO NOT agree to having a CV replace any of our AFB.
afew LHA, if manpower does not permit a CV, is in my opinion, a good replacement for our current 4 LSTs.
to replace an entire AFB, nothing short of a massive Mobile offshore floating fortress of equivalent or BIGGER size to the AFB its replacing can satisfy me.
-
just some random thoughts on the floating fortress\air field concept ,in world war 2 German's built super flak towers in the defence of Berlin.
read up on flack tower - wiki
pretty impressive,
"were constructed in a mere 6 month's"
"Flak towers were considered to be invulnerable to attack with the usual ordinance carried by Allied bombers"
states that it could have been taken out by the grand slam bombs, but aircraft avoided the area possibly (propably) because of heavy anti aircraft fire.
"The towers, during the fall of Berlin, formed their own communities, with up to 30,000 or more Berliners taking refuge in a single tower during the battle. These towers were some of the safest places in the fought-over city and some of the last places to surrender to Allied forces, eventually forced to capitulate as supplies ran out."
"The Soviets, in their assault on Berlin, found it difficult to inflict significant damage on the Flak towers, even with some of the largest Soviet guns, such as the 203mm howitzers. Soviet forces generally manoeuvered around the towers"
"The towers were able to sustain a rate of fire of 8000 rounds per minute from their multi-level guns, with a range of up to 14km in a full 360-degree field of fire"
"after the war was lost, the demolition of the towers was in most cases unfeasible and many remain to this day"
of course in face of mordern munitions it propably could not hold out, but with modern AA systems and integrity in building strength. could an new twist on a proven concept work? :D
Bristling firepower could serve as huge deterrence in prevention of even an attempt to attack.
surely im missing out alot of other points as other forumners may (will) point out, but just a food for thought.
-
An aircraft carrier for SG is a preposterous idea.
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
An aircraft carrier for SG is a preposterous idea.
Every idea is an impossibility until it is born - Ron Brown -
Originally posted by NDU:
yes, .... when the manpower from the whole air force and navy combine together, and all of them stay onboard and keep the operation running... however, doesnt its the same as PUTTING ALL EGG IN ONE BASKET??
Pls read page 2, posts 14 and 16 for a response. -
Originally posted by tripwire:
miss the topic for a day, and the fire burns...
just wanna clarify my position.
i DO NOT agree to having a CV replace any of our AFB.
afew LHA, if manpower does not permit a CV, is in my opinion, a good replacement for our current 4 LSTs.
to replace an entire AFB, nothing short of a massive Mobile offshore floating fortress of equivalent or BIGGER size to the AFB its replacing can satisfy me.
I doubt if any 1 CV (except perhaps one the size of the US CVNs) can replace an AFB.
The LSTs at 8-9 years old have a long lifespan left. Doesn't make sense to replace them at this time but that is a possibility is about 2-3 decades.
Does it make sense to replace an under-utilised AFB with an even bigger AFB?
Replacing a old design AFB with a better designed AFB, not necessarily bigger that is capable of increased sortie eg through multiple runways and increased defense is another matter.
-
aiyah, we just need lots of remote control planes and copters, and a secret underground base where the remote controls are designed like simulator machines.
So if a plane crashed, just start a second one. Never ending
-
We just need to do missle testing, just like how korea does it and sets the whole japan on alert.
-
Slim10, using words like 'force projection' is a lot smarter than proposing an aircraft carrier for SG.
An aircraft carrier is designed for the operation of aircraft independent of another country's airspace and land. When you're carrying fighter aircraft on board, is that not force projection? You are increasing the range of your fighter force away from your borders.
Why would SG need to do that? For a country the size of SG, the military just needs to focus on:
1. Defending SG's land, sea and airspace.
2. Participate in some multinational task groups on issues such as peacekeeping and piracy.
3. Humanitarian disaster relief.
SG shouldn't be thinking about invading anyone. Invading other countries is not possible with such limited resources and people. Indonesia will kick your ass and Malaysia, while weaker militarily has the resources to eventually turn the tide.
Why no aircraft carrier?
1. Cuz it's fuking hard to operate one that's why. Look at the Chinese, they're still working on it. Look at the Thais, theirs is tiny and tied up 3/4 of the time. Look at the Aussies, they gave theirs up in 1983. Look at the French, their CDG has problems with nuclear reactor half the time. Look at the Indians, buying from the Russians yet still having delays. Get the picture?
2. Cost: SG may be rich, but it's not that rich. It's a lot of money sacrificed on other things that are of more value to SG. With the money not spent on an aircraft carrier SG could possibly acquire subs, fighter aircraft, more ships etc. The options are endless.
3. Support: SG doesn't have the navy capable of supporting an aircraft carrier. You need destroyers and frigates plus some subs. From what I heard, your subs aren't up to scratch yet, plus you have no destroyers.
4. Experience: SG doesn't have any experience with aircraft carriers.
5. Politics: if SG were to bang their drum with an aircraft carrier do you think Indonesia would be happy? What about Malaysia? It is in the interests of SG to maintain the status quo. If it's a calm sea, you don't want to blow a gust of wind do you?
They should make two seperate forums - one for genuine military talk and one for fantasisers - lionnoisy and slim10 can be moderaters.
-
slim10, i really respect your in depth knowledge of aircraft and other stuff, but why raise the issue of an aircraft carrier here ?
im not questioning the feasibility of it, nor the validity of the concept and am aware of hints by CJ about this. but still, why here ? knowing that you'd face brickbats and alot of comments ?
this is not meant to be a disparaging remark or negative comment. i just think you have to be clear with your purpose, why are you bringing this up ? dont take it in a bad way, i m sure you have your reason for discussing this. just why ?
i like to reemphasize again, im not challenging your idea's validity or its feasibility. i dont think i know enough to even discuss this with you. And by no means, do i intend any form of offense with this post, im just puzzled. why ?
-
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:Slim10, using words like 'force projection' is a lot smarter than proposing an aircraft carrier for SG.
An aircraft carrier is designed for the operation of aircraft independent of another country's airspace and land. When you're carrying fighter aircraft on board, is that not force projection? You are increasing the range of your fighter force away from your borders.
--------------------------
Your definition means any country that operates an airforce esp with tankers or acquires longer ranged aircraft = force projection. You really need to relook at what exactly you are saying.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
Why would SG need to do that? For a country the size of SG, the military just needs to focus on:1. Defending SG's land, sea and airspace.
2. Participate in some multinational task groups on issues such as peacekeeping and piracy.
3. Humanitarian disaster relief.
--------------------------
You're ignoring the rationale mentioned in 3 pages of discussion. See page 1 post 1 again for a summary.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
SG shouldn't be thinking about invading anyone. Invading other countries is not possible with such limited resources and people. Indonesia will kick your ass and Malaysia, while weaker militarily has the resources to eventually turn the tide.
--------------------------Other than US, the countries that own an aircraft carrier includes Brazil, Spain, India, Thailand, UK, France and Italy. Are you really suggesting that every of these countries are thinking of invading anyone as a result of them owning a carrier? You need to reexamine your thought process.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
Why no aircraft carrier?1. Cuz it's fuking hard to operate one that's why. Look at the Chinese, they're still working on it. Look at the Thais, theirs is tiny and tied up 3/4 of the time. Look at the Aussies, they gave theirs up in 1983. Look at the French, their CDG has problems with nuclear reactor half the time. Look at the Indians, buying from the Russians yet still having delays. Get the picture?
--------------------------No one ever said operating a CV was easy. Yet Brazil, Spain, India, Thailand, UK, France, Italy, etc have done so. As mentioned, Australia, Argentina and others have operated carriers before. Without your even discussing specifics of why it is difficult to operate a carrier, you have already generalised that owning a carrier is prohibitive even when there are many other countries operating it and intending to operate one. Korea intends to fit the F-35s on the Dokdos. Australia has recommended operation of the F-35s on its Canberras (even considering a third one specifically to operate F-35). Japan with the Hyugas, etc.
I can understand there are a lot of people who think themselves intellectual and culturally superiority and thus cannot believe a country like Singapore has the capability and capacity to do so, I on the other hand, don't look down on Singaporeans and Singapore and thus have a different perception of SG's capabilities.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
2. Cost: SG may be rich, but it's not that rich. It's a lot of money sacrificed on other things that are of more value to SG. With the money not spent on an aircraft carrier SG could possibly acquire subs, fighter aircraft, more ships etc. The options are endless.
--------------------------You should again read the earlier post which has dealt with this. The rationale as has been repeated several times is that the oppotunity cost of operating a land base in the context of a country whose land prices are several times that of Australia. If you appreciate how much land prices cost in Singapore, one would understand the difference in cost comparison. Singapore, as a small country, can ill-afford not to maximise critical land resources.
Indeed, if you read the first post, you may realise that a CV is only proposed as a possible option rather than a definitive yes. However, I am sceptical of your ability to even read this far into a post.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
3. Support: SG doesn't have the navy capable of supporting an aircraft carrier. You need destroyers and frigates plus some subs. From what I heard, your subs aren't up to scratch yet, plus you have no destroyers.
--------------------------And again you repeat what has been dealt with, reiterated and repeated, just like a mindless robot. Spain doesn't have any destroyers but amazingly they have a carrier. By your definition, Spain must be incapable of operating their aircraft carrier. lol.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
4. Experience: SG doesn't have any experience with aircraft carriers.
--------------------------Another a genius-level post. If everyone should never do something or even consider doing something new because they have never done it before, it must explain why some people don't seem to have the ability to exercise their brains.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
5. Politics: if SG were to bang their drum with an aircraft carrier do you think Indonesia would be happy? What about Malaysia? It is in the interests of SG to maintain the status quo. If it's a calm sea, you don't want to blow a gust of wind do you?
--------------------------What you don't realise is that the status quo is a continual exercise in improvements rather than the static "do only what the past and others are doing". The huge storm in teacup arising from thailand's purchase of an aircraft carrier must really have spooked your little mind. Considering the size of Singapore, it is amazing how many people actually think SG can be a threat, even with a CV. I don't think you realise the contradiction in what you have said so I'd help you by pointing it out.
The only way other countries would be spooked is if the carrier presents an improvement in SG's capabilities. If there is an improvement, then it would seem contradictory to argue that SG should not thus seek an improvement in capability.
The irony is that you don't get the idea that this is not about increasing the number of aircraft SG is getting but merely rebasing aircraft that otherwise would be on land, to a vessel at sea. If indeed, there is a higher risk of basing at sea (ie sink the CV = sink the sqn), then wouldn't the neighbours ironically feel safer as a result.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
They should make two seperate forums - one for genuine military talk and one for fantasisers - lionnoisy and slim10 can be moderaters.
--------------------------Indeed, judging by the level of your contributions in this thread, you'll fit right in with past discussion threads regarding gundams and transformers. You need practice on your mud-slinging as well. Calling others stupid, ignorant without being able to back it up tends to be the actions of a crass ignoranus rather than a mere ignoramus.
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
slim10, i really respect your in depth knowledge of aircraft and other stuff, but why raise the issue of an aircraft carrier here ?
im not questioning the feasibility of it, nor the validity of the concept and am aware of hints by CJ about this. but still, why here ? knowing that you'd face brickbats and alot of comments ?
this is not meant to be a disparaging remark or negative comment. i just think you have to be clear with your purpose, why are you bringing this up ? dont take it in a bad way, i m sure you have your reason for discussing this. just why ?
i like to reemphasize again, im not challenging your idea's validity or its feasibility. i dont think i know enough to even discuss this with you. And by no means, do i intend any form of offense with this post, im just puzzled. why ?
Its just introducing a perspective of looking at CV ownership rather than the tendency of many, as demonstrated in this thread, to look at CVs in isolation without considering the integrated impact on land ops, alternative technologies eg floating runways etc.I have not made my mind up on whether CV operation is feasible in the context of Singapore, nor was this the objective of the exercise. I am however looking to challenge the presumption that SG's CV operation is a far-fetched idea (and hoping to go beyond the usual trolling (though I expected some name-calling and duly got it)). Its an interesting topic to discuss and I admit its an area that I don't know a lot about. Good opportunity for those who really know the subject to show that they know it. Good opportunity too for scenario building and extended discussion eg how one, if one was a neighbouring country, would respond.
A forum is a medium of open discussion and expression of ideas. Some people just don't get what a forum means.
-
I supposed aircraft carrier is used to exhance the range of air strike thru movement of the sea.
Do Singapore need it?
Where is the furtherest that our aircraft can strike on?
And why do we need to strike on that furtherest?
-
Originally posted by Bane:
I supposed aircraft carrier is used to exhance the range of air strike thru movement of the sea.
Do Singapore need it?
Where is the furtherest that our aircraft can strike on?
And why do we need to strike on that furtherest?
Good point. Currently, RSAF aircraft will be expected to originate from Singapore island only. The aircraft may eventually manoeuvre to other vectors but the origin point is fixed, hence making routes more predictable.With a sea base that can be based at various localities, the strike/A2A intercept vectors can come from significantly more locations. Hence prediction of routes are more difficult. As an example, in the case of the Falklands, even though the vector of the British CVs were known, their distance made at least 2-D wise more difficult to estimate the locality of the British fleet until the amph landed on Port Stanley.
In AFB defense, a focussed sector defence is always more efficient than trying to defend 360 deg attacks. If I know attacks will come from one direction only, one can better situate defences to pre-empt attacks.
In Singapore's case, airspace considerations will limit aircraft to certain localities. One can't shift an island. The target thus does not need to be far from home for a CV to make a difference in terms of strike vector.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:Slim10, using words like 'force projection' is a lot smarter than proposing an aircraft carrier for SG.
An aircraft carrier is designed for the operation of aircraft independent of another country's airspace and land. When you're carrying fighter aircraft on board, is that not force projection? You are increasing the range of your fighter force away from your borders.
--------------------------
Your definition means any country that operates an airforce esp with tankers or acquires longer ranged aircraft = force projection. You really need to relook at what exactly you are saying.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
Why would SG need to do that? For a country the size of SG, the military just needs to focus on:1. Defending SG's land, sea and airspace.
2. Participate in some multinational task groups on issues such as peacekeeping and piracy.
3. Humanitarian disaster relief.
--------------------------
You're ignoring the rationale mentioned in 3 pages of discussion. See page 1 post 1 again for a summary.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
SG shouldn't be thinking about invading anyone. Invading other countries is not possible with such limited resources and people. Indonesia will kick your ass and Malaysia, while weaker militarily has the resources to eventually turn the tide.
--------------------------Other than US, the countries that own an aircraft carrier includes Brazil, Spain, India, Thailand, UK, France and Italy. Are you really suggesting that every of these countries are thinking of invading anyone as a result of them owning a carrier? You need to reexamine your thought process.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
Why no aircraft carrier?1. Cuz it's fuking hard to operate one that's why. Look at the Chinese, they're still working on it. Look at the Thais, theirs is tiny and tied up 3/4 of the time. Look at the Aussies, they gave theirs up in 1983. Look at the French, their CDG has problems with nuclear reactor half the time. Look at the Indians, buying from the Russians yet still having delays. Get the picture?
--------------------------No one ever said operating a CV was easy. Yet Brazil, Spain, India, Thailand, UK, France, Italy, etc have done so. As mentioned, Australia, Argentina and others have operated carriers before. Without your even discussing specifics of why it is difficult to operate a carrier, you have already generalised that owning a carrier is prohibitive even when there are many other countries operating it and intending to operate one. Korea intends to fit the F-35s on the Dokdos. Australia has recommended operation of the F-35s on its Canberras (even considering a third one specifically to operate F-35). Japan with the Hyugas, etc.
I can understand there are a lot of people who think themselves intellectual and culturally superiority and thus cannot believe a country like Singapore has the capability and capacity to do so, I on the other hand, don't look down on Singaporeans and Singapore and thus have a different perception of SG's capabilities.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
2. Cost: SG may be rich, but it's not that rich. It's a lot of money sacrificed on other things that are of more value to SG. With the money not spent on an aircraft carrier SG could possibly acquire subs, fighter aircraft, more ships etc. The options are endless.
--------------------------You should again read the earlier post which has dealt with this. The rationale as has been repeated several times is that the oppotunity cost of operating a land base in the context of a country whose land prices are several times that of Australia. If you appreciate how much land prices cost in Singapore, one would understand the difference in cost comparison. Singapore, as a small country, can ill-afford not to maximise critical land resources.
Indeed, if you read the first post, you may realise that a CV is only proposed as a possible option rather than a definitive yes. However, I am sceptical of your ability to even read this far into a post.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
3. Support: SG doesn't have the navy capable of supporting an aircraft carrier. You need destroyers and frigates plus some subs. From what I heard, your subs aren't up to scratch yet, plus you have no destroyers.
--------------------------And again you repeat what has been dealt with, reiterated and repeated, just like a mindless robot. Spain doesn't have any destroyers but amazingly they have a carrier. By your definition, Spain must be incapable of operating their aircraft carrier. lol.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
4. Experience: SG doesn't have any experience with aircraft carriers.
--------------------------Another a genius-level post. If everyone should never do something or even consider doing something new because they have never done it before, it must explain why some people don't seem to have the ability to exercise their brains.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
5. Politics: if SG were to bang their drum with an aircraft carrier do you think Indonesia would be happy? What about Malaysia? It is in the interests of SG to maintain the status quo. If it's a calm sea, you don't want to blow a gust of wind do you?
--------------------------What you don't realise is that the status quo is a continual exercise in improvements rather than the static "do only what the past and others are doing". The huge storm in teacup arising from thailand's purchase of an aircraft carrier must really have spooked your little mind. Considering the size of Singapore, it is amazing how many people actually think SG can be a threat, even with a CV. I don't think you realise the contradiction in what you have said so I'd help you by pointing it out.
The only way other countries would be spooked is if the carrier presents an improvement in SG's capabilities. If there is an improvement, then it would seem contradictory to argue that SG should not thus seek an improvement in capability.
The irony is that you don't get the idea that this is not about increasing the number of aircraft SG is getting but merely rebasing aircraft that otherwise would be on land, to a vessel at sea. If indeed, there is a higher risk of basing at sea (ie sink the CV = sink the sqn), then wouldn't the neighbours ironically feel safer as a result.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asian Aussie said:
They should make two seperate forums - one for genuine military talk and one for fantasisers - lionnoisy and slim10 can be moderaters.
--------------------------Indeed, judging by the level of your contributions in this thread, you'll fit right in with past discussion threads regarding gundams and transformers. You need practice on your mud-slinging as well. Calling others stupid, ignorant without being able to back it up tends to be the actions of a crass ignoranus rather than a mere ignoramus.
Slim, I refer to point 3
While the Spanish Navy has a carrier, it does not mean in anyway that they are effective in its deployment, support, protection etc?
From what you replied to my earlier posts (See page 2) you give me the impression that "Since the Spanish Navy has equal surface assets to SG, therefore SG's navy can protect the carrier effectively".
I think we do need to consider if the Spanish navy is indeed effective first.
-
Originally posted by chanjyj:
Slim, I refer to point 3
While the Spanish Navy has a carrier, it does not mean in anyway that they are effective in its deployment, support, protection etc?
From what you replied to my earlier posts (See page 2) you give me the impression that "Since the Spanish Navy has equal surface assets to SG, therefore SG's navy can protect the carrier effectively".
I think we do need to consider if the Spanish navy is indeed effective first.
Indeed, most countries do a cost-benefit study before they actually consider whether something is effective. Turkey, another country without destroyers, is another fairly recent example of looking at CVLs...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_199907/ai_n8869765/
With over 40 years of CVL employment amid sparse naval assets, the Spanish fleet's effectiveness and strategy is intriguing indeed. Can Spain be that stubbornly wrong and ineffective for over 40 years? In view of its long employment history, I hesitate to label the Spanish as ineffective and indeed consider what are the advances/tactics they employ to manage such risks.Indeed, modern Spanish CVL strategy is actually based on the sea control ship concept of the 70s. Ironically, the ship is meant as an escort to escort other ships (similar in function to escort carriers) rather than serving as a floating airbase like current CVNs.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/scs.htm
The Falklands can again be used as yet another validation of the CVL concept. How significant a part did escorts really play to contribute to the eventual success of the Falklands? On the other hand, consider the effect on fleet protection that the 2 CVLs played.
Interesting too that if the Formidables, Victorys, subs etc are not even capable of escorting safely a single ship, consider what does this imply regarding the RSN's ability and role in protecting the merchant fleets, Endurance LSTs and SG's SLOCs. If they are insufficient to protect defenseless ships (as compared to the SCS which has defenses of its own), as argued by some, perhaps indeed, RSN should consider an upgrade.
-
I personally do not see RSN will acquire a standard "light Carrier" from an existing design. I think they will continue to acquire knowledge thru operating the frigates and derives operating needs thru the experience of various deployments in the Gulf. That fit with 3G .
From looking at the ministry procurement behavior, I think it is possible to see SG continue to procured new vessel thru local ship builders “maybe” a bigger multiple purposes ship with the capabilities to meet various needs that include air asset but not necessary devoted a full sqns on board.
The LST was built as a multiple purposes support ship. In recent years it has been deployed for patrol, relief; and at the same time adding hardware as they go along so eventually it doesn’t really look like a standard LST.
The unpredictable Geo politics in asia continue to evolve. so are the needs.
-
Every idea is an impossibility until it is born - Ron Brown
Slim10
OK, while we are at it, why not SG get a couple of nuclear ballistic submarines too - now that's an idea !
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
OK, while we are at it, why not SG get a couple of nuclear ballistic submarines too - now that's an idea !
You're welcome to start your own thread and discuss the possibility. Whilst ASEAN has adopted a nuclear free zone, it certainly has not adopted a CV free zone.
Your scepticism of the concept is noted. Belaboring it any further would be tedious.