just throw in some speculation about a mini CV in the region. im going to raise some possible push factors.
going to exclude the chakri narubet in this presumption.
i can see why having a CV is given a political green light if in the very long run, the US-china relation is going to be marked by "conegagement" where its a mixture of containment by establishing a ring of countries around china and engaging with china.
some news from Oz that they are likely to build up capabilities in order to match/balance china's rise.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/422718/1/.html
MELBOURNE: Australia must boost defence spending to give its military the hardware to deal with strategic challenges presented by China's rise as a global superpower, an influential think tank has warned.
China's growth meant the US, Australia's main military ally, would lose its dominant position in Asia in coming decades, creating uncertainty and a higher risk of conflict, the Lowy Institute for International Policy said.
The institute, in a report released this week ahead of a major government review into the defence force, recommended a huge boost in military spending to take it to 2.5 per cent from 2.0 per cent of total Australian gross domestic product.
It said Australia should triple its submarine fleet to 18 vessels and double its order for F-35 Joint Strike Fighters as well as increasing the number of infantry troops available for regional deployments.
The report's author professor Hugh White, who wrote the last major government defence review released in 2000, said China may not pose a direct threat to Australia but its rise was changing regional power dynamics.
"This power shift poses an unprecedented challenge to American primacy, which has kept Asia stable and Australia safe for many decades," he said.
"China's challenge to US primacy undercuts the most basic assumptions of Australian defence policy, and poses big questions."
White said Australia could not assume it would retain its status as a middle-ranking regional power as its neighbours expanded rapidly in what is being dubbed "The Asia Century".
"The long-term trends suggest that Australia has no choice but to spend more on defence or accept a steady decline in strategic weight," he said.
"A mere 20 years ago, Australia's economy was the second largest in Asia after Japan -- larger than either India's or China's.
"How quickly the balance has shifted."
The government's defence review is expected to be released before the annual Budget is handed down in Canberra on May 12.
- AFP/yb
same might apply for the rest of SEA. under these circumstances, getting a carrier with aircraft would serve to better protect our strategic interests and SLOCs.
SG might become like Japan. publicly concerned with the protection of SLOC within a "certain" territorial boundary (like how Japan has a pledge to defend 1,000NM of key sea lanes and boundaries)
""some news from Oz that they are likely to build up capabilities in order to match/balance china's rise""
i'm afraid thats just the delusional dreams of a few old men, australia is just a small part of a usa/euro wheel
A 2008 article by a NUS senior fellow, Richard Bitzinger, tracing the evolution of the aircraft carrier in the region...
www.idss.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/RSIS0682008.pdf
One option to consider:
- SG purchasing the Chakri Nareubet in year 2020 (Thais keep their AV-8s and save on the operational cost, SG get a "cheap" training vessel for the F-35B) and creating a few hundred fresh new jobs.
We would be bonkers to buy the Chakri. Can you imagine the MLU costs??
Slim 10 says:
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.
No, my definition does not mean that at all. You are right that we have tankers to extend the range of aircraft, but the fact is that this only supports a limited number of aircraft. Therefore this doesn't really equal force projection. An aircraft carrier though, provides a sustained effort. This is how the US Navy defines their aircraft carrier:
The aircraft carrier continues to be the centerpiece of the forces necessary for forward presence. Whenever there has been a crisis, the first question has been: "Where are the carriers?" Carriers support and operate aircraft that engage in attacks on airborne, afloat, and ashore targets that threaten free use of the sea; and engage in sustained operations in support of other forces.
Slim 10: You're ignoring the rationale mentioned in 3 pages of discussion. See page 1 post 1 again for a summary.
No, I'm not ignoring what's been said in the last three pages of discussion. For example, I made reference to sepecat's good sense in my last post. Also your point regarding SG's relative lack of land is a good valid point, however it's not enough to make an aircraft carrier an attractive option. Your argument about how it's not that expensive consider a Spanish BPE will cost approx $700m is simplistic, where are the running costs for example? Another
Slim 10: 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.
Some of the countries you mentioned above like US, France, and UK have other foreign policies that require an aircraft carrier. These countries have relatively large roles in the international environment and are required to carry a "big stick" for deterrence purposes for example. Spain and Italy follow suit because if France and UK have aircraft carriers then they need to match their neighbours. India is looking to control its sphere of influence which is the Indian Ocean as well as threats from Pakistan. Thailand is stupid fullstop. Why buy something when you only use it 25% of the time? There, I hope that answers your concerns.
No, you don't understand. You're assuming that people are looking down on SG when no one has ever said anything even remotely close to what you're inferring. Stop trying to take the higher ground by making up something out of nothing!
How many F35s will Korea fit on their Dokdo? With such a small number will it be effective? Is the Dokdo more effective as a helicopter carrier rather than a handicapped aircraft carrier?
Australia is not putting F35s on its Canberras. Lobby groups argued for a third Canberra but the intention was always to have a RoRo ship. Please please please don't be like lionnoisy and rely on information that is merely heresay. You're acting like some sort of expert analyst, yet can't even keep up to date with info. The latest info is that there might not even be the third RoRo ship because of the economic crisis.
As for Japan, no it's not thinking of F35s for its Hyugas.
1. The Hyuga class is designated as a helicopter destroyer. It will have four landing spots.
2. It is possible to have F35s and Harriers on board. However issues with Japan's pacificist constitution have to be overcome. Other countries that suffered in WW2 have already been critical of the Hyuga in its helicopter role, let alone an "aircraft carrier".
Now onto Thailand. Thailand's carrier is really a helicopter carrier according to some sources. It is tied in dock 75% of the time. Some of the people commenting here have even suggested that SG buy it off the Thais.
Yes it is hard to operate a CV. No, it's not prohibitive to operate a CV, but it won't be money well spent eh?
Slim 10: 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.
Despite repeating it, you don't get it in your thick head that's why. Spain doesn't have destroyers but it's got F100 frigates with Aegis doesn't it? You should also be aware if you've studied enough sources that European countries are reluctant to call their ships destroyers and prefer the term frigate because of sensitivity issues. The F100 are almost 6000t displacement. Australia's last destroyers were only approx 4500t. Rethink your post.
Slim 10: 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.
I disagree with your point claiming no improvement in SG's capability with an aircraft carrier. It's naive to think that having an aircraft carrier is merely shifting aircraft from land to sea. It's more complicated than that, fool. Sure the number of aircraft might be the same, but the range and capabilites of those aircraft have been multiplied. The number of available hours for each aircraft has been increased with the aircraft carrier and thus you could argue that there is an increase in the availablity of aircraft which is almost the same as having more aircraft in a way.
Slim 10: 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.
Gundams and transformers? What the hell are you talking about? The majority of my posts are aimed at lionnoisy's stupid posts. What the fuk are you reading? I think I've backed myself well enough to call you stupid. You post up here advocating aircraft carriers for SG, now you say you're only investigating the feasability. Huge change in tone all of a sudden if you ask me.
Slim 10: 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.
Correction in layout for my previous post:
Slim 10: 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.
No, you don't understand. You're assuming that people are looking down on SG when no one has ever said anything even remotely close to what you're inferring. Stop trying to take the higher ground by making up something out of nothing!
How many F35s will Korea fit on their Dokdo? With such a small number will it be effective? Is the Dokdo more effective as a helicopter carrier rather than a handicapped aircraft carrier?
Australia is not putting F35s on its Canberras. Lobby groups argued for a third Canberra but the intention was always to have a RoRo ship. Please please please don't be like lionnoisy and rely on information that is merely heresay. You're acting like some sort of expert analyst, yet can't even keep up to date with info. The latest info is that there might not even be the third RoRo ship because of the economic crisis.
As for Japan, no it's not thinking of F35s for its Hyugas.
1. The Hyuga class is designated as a helicopter destroyer. It will have four landing spots.
2. It is possible to have F35s and Harriers on board. However issues with Japan's pacificist constitution have to be overcome. Other countries that suffered in WW2 have already been critical of the Hyuga in its helicopter role, let alone an "aircraft carrier".
Now onto Thailand. Thailand's carrier is really a helicopter carrier according to some sources. It is tied in dock 75% of the time. Some of the people commenting here have even suggested that SG buy it off the Thais.
Yes it is hard to operate a CV. No, it's not prohibitive to operate a CV, but it won't be money well spent eh?
Now having said all that,
I admire you guts to bring this topic up. However if the purpose of your post is to investigate such issues, then you should clearly say that you are trying to bust the "aircraft carrier not possible" myth.
Your first post adopted an advocacy tone which leaves you open to getting trashed.
And you should consider both sides of the argument and not one equally.
Other topics that I believe would be more relevant for SG include:
1. What role do subs play in SG's future force and are the current subs up to scratch? If not, what are the options?
2. Ok so the aircraft carrier is out. What large ship would be appropriate for SG? A small LHD, a LST or LHA?
3. How can SG's defence forces contribute to the stability of ASEAN zone?
These are just suggested topics. Sure, they're less 'sexy' than talking about CVs, but these topics are highly relevant to SG future defence.
Originally posted by sgstars:just throw in some speculation about a mini CV in the region. im going to raise some possible push factors.
going to exclude the chakri narubet in this presumption.
i can see why having a CV is given a political green light if in the very long run, the US-china relation is going to be marked by "conegagement" where its a mixture of containment by establishing a ring of countries around china and engaging with china.
some news from Oz that they are likely to build up capabilities in order to match/balance china's rise.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/422718/1/.html
same might apply for the rest of SEA. under these circumstances, getting a carrier with aircraft would serve to better protect our strategic interests and SLOCs.
SG might become like Japan. publicly concerned with the protection of SLOC within a "certain" territorial boundary (like how Japan has a pledge to defend 1,000NM of key sea lanes and boundaries)
At the current SG leadership i am not sure they would stood up against china.
Originally posted by LazerLordz:We would be bonkers to buy the Chakri. Can you imagine the MLU costs??
Probably. Even if the cost is justifiable. One more issue I just thought of is that the elevators probably can't take the JSF weight.
ddd--sorry wrong post
Asian Aussie said:
No, my definition does not mean that at all. You are right that we have tankers to extend the range of aircraft, but the fact is that this only supports a limited number of aircraft. Therefore this doesn't really equal force projection. An aircraft carrier though, provides a sustained effort. This is how the US Navy defines their aircraft carrier:
-------------------------------
A CVL doesn't exactly carry a large number of aircraft (we're probably talking about 12-24 a/c per BPC) and is probably more limited in sustainment ie only when a CVL takes to sea. 4 tankers can easily support sustained L-R ops for more aircraft for a possibly far longer time. The example of Israel undertaking operations such as the Osirak strikes is one such example.
A sqn is not sufficient to threaten nations located further. In the case of nations nearer, it makes no difference in terms of numbers/sorties capacity.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Asian Aussie said:
The aircraft carrier continues to be the centerpiece of the forces necessary for forward presence. Whenever there has been a crisis, the first question has been: "Where are the carriers?" Carriers support and operate aircraft that engage in attacks on airborne, afloat, and ashore targets that threaten free use of the sea; and engage in sustained operations in support of other forces.
-------------------------------
It still doesn't validate the original argument which is that people who own carriers purchase it for "force projection" or "invasion" as assumed. Whilst carriers are necessary for forward presence, it doesn't mean the vice versa that it will only be used as such. The carrier has equal role in defence as demonstrated by the Falklands.
Ironically, the carrier support missions you have indicated are partly the mission of the RSN. There are other roles that a CVL can play eg flight training as the PLAN is planning to do with the Varyag.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Asian Aussie said:
No, I'm not ignoring what's been said in the last three pages of discussion. For example, I made reference to sepecat's good sense in my last post. Also your point regarding SG's relative lack of land is a good valid point, however it's not enough to make an aircraft carrier an attractive option. Your argument about how it's not that expensive consider a Spanish BPE will cost approx $700m is simplistic, where are the running costs for example? Another
-------------------------------
It is an assumption that a CVL cost is prohibitive. Sub-urban land is sold in SG at close to or more than US$3k+ per sq m. You can estimate the opportunity cost of an airbase the size of ~4 sq kms. That's not including running cost of an airbase removed.
How much additional running cost will a BPE take over the redevelopment of land that will generate far more tax dollars (eg property taxes which will not apply for a military facility) over the life time cost (not counting cost savings from airbase maintenance issues).
Even looking at a BPE running cost, ~$12m per year for salaries, another $X-XX (low)m for fuel and maintenance. I doubt it will be significantly more than an endurance class LST. A significant part of cost are actually from operation of the air fleet which will need to be incurred even if SG doesn't get a BPE (ie ground based a/c).
I agree that my argument is simplistic but the hypothesis judging from a high level review of the above is sufficient to justify at least a relook at the cost numbers and the assumptions made.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Asian Aussie said:
Some of the countries you mentioned above like US, France, and UK have other foreign policies that require an aircraft carrier. These countries have relatively large roles in the international environment and are required to carry a "big stick" for deterrence purposes for example. Spain and Italy follow suit because if France and UK have aircraft carriers then they need to match their neighbours. India is looking to control its sphere of influence which is the Indian Ocean as well as threats from Pakistan. Thailand is stupid fullstop. Why buy something when you only use it 25% of the time? There, I hope that answers your concerns.
-------------------------------
Some but not all. SG is not a big country that carries a big stick or has foreign lands to protect hence the perception that a CVL in SG's hands is going to be used for forward presence or force projection is debunked.
The principle driver, imho, for a SG's CVL is primarily suggested as a rebasing supplement tool ie for alternative land use. If a reallocation of a/c from a deleted airbase to remaining airbases is too much to handle or if a perception that overall SG runway numbers are reduced is a concern, then a CVL is one option that can be considered.
Also, it is a useful tool for flight training and of course enhanced protection of SLOCs.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Asian Aussie said:
No, you don't understand. You're assuming that people are looking down on SG when no one has ever said anything even remotely close to what you're inferring. Stop trying to take the higher ground by making up something out of nothing!
-------------------------------
That is the logical conclusion one can draw when an argument is put forward questioning the ability of a country to operate a piece of machinery.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Asian Aussie said:
How many F35s will Korea fit on their Dokdo? With such a small number will it be effective? Is the Dokdo more effective as a helicopter carrier rather than a handicapped aircraft carrier?
-------------------------------
You are starting to get the point. The RSAF does not operate that many aircraft. Neither do the countries in this region eg Malaysia only has 4X 3rd gen combat a/c (18 suks, 16 migs and 8 hornets). The operation of 8-24 a/c may not seem significant in the context of US but in the context of the region, it may have sufficient effect to justify its existence and yet not enough by itself to threaten.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Asian Aussie said:
Australia is not putting F35s on its Canberras. Lobby groups argued for a third Canberra but the intention was always to have a RoRo ship. Please please please don't be like lionnoisy and rely on information that is merely heresay. You're acting like some sort of expert analyst, yet can't even keep up to date with info. The latest info is that there might not even be the third RoRo ship because of the economic crisis.
-------------------------------
You can't read. I used the word "considered" which is exactly what Australia did. I did not at any time state that Australia was going to put F-35s on its Canberras. If Australia is able to consider the use of the Canberras to house F-35Bs and indeed recommended (recommendation 9 of an official inquiry entitled Australia Maritime Strategy) for procurement, why is it so preposterous for SG to consider a similar solution? Again, your mud-slinging merely shows your illiteracy.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Asian Aussie said:
As for Japan, no it's not thinking of F35s for its Hyugas.
1. The Hyuga class is designated as a helicopter destroyer. It will have four landing spots.
2. It is possible to have F35s and Harriers on board. However issues with Japan's pacificist constitution have to be overcome. Other countries that suffered in WW2 have already been critical of the Hyuga in its helicopter role, let alone an "aircraft carrier".
-------------------------------
Some people consider it possible and some people think it is inevitable (see defense news report).
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/4621
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Asian Aussie said:
Now onto Thailand. Thailand's carrier is really a helicopter carrier according to some sources. It is tied in dock 75% of the time. Some of the people commenting here have even suggested that SG buy it off the Thais.
Yes it is hard to operate a CV. No, it's not prohibitive to operate a CV, but it won't be money well spent eh?
-------------------------------
It find it inconsistent to regard the Chakri as a helicopter carrier when it operates thai AV-8s aircraft. Whether money well spent is an analysis that requires a lot more analysis that has been done so far.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Asian Aussie said:
Despite repeating it, you don't get it in your thick head that's why. Spain doesn't have destroyers but it's got F100 frigates with Aegis doesn't it? You should also be aware if you've studied enough sources that European countries are reluctant to call their ships destroyers and prefer the term frigate because of sensitivity issues. The F100 are almost 6000t displacement. Australia's last destroyers were only approx 4500t. Rethink your post.
-------------------------------
lol. Where exactly in this thread, did you repeat the above? You have a very strange definition of repeat.
Your post also outlines your lack of situation awareness. Why does SG require heavy tonnage "destroyer-disguished frigates" or systems capable of tracking thousands of targets when the sea space it operates in does not have that kind of battlefield considerations? SG is not in Europe with that kind of density of air ops.
If Aegis was necessary, SG would not have gone for the Formidables but a heavier class of frigate. The capabilities are always structured to meet the conditions in which a piece of equipment is expected to operate in. Same reason why Australian "destroyers" which you conveniently term just to demonstrate your inobjectivity, have less tonnage (though it obtained the Aegis as a reflection that the Australians expect to operate in far denser conditions). The above does not justify why SG's current fleet cannot perform the escort role equally well in the context of its operational needs and conditions.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Asian Aussie said:
I disagree with your point claiming no improvement in SG's capability with an aircraft carrier. It's naive to think that having an aircraft carrier is merely shifting aircraft from land to sea. It's more complicated than that, fool. Sure the number of aircraft might be the same, but the range and capabilites of those aircraft have been multiplied. The number of available hours for each aircraft has been increased with the aircraft carrier and thus you could argue that there is an increase in the availablity of aircraft which is almost the same as having more aircraft in a way.
-------------------------------
First you claim that a CV is used like 25% of the time (see above), then you claim that the available hours has been increase?
You mean if I base aircraft on land and then shift it to an aircraft carrier, its not shifting aircraft from land to sea? lol.
The range of the aircraft can be extended similarly by tanker aircraft, as acknowledged by yourself. How different is the capability of an aircraft at sea vs an aircraft on land to have a "multiplier effect" as claimed? lol.
How do you reconcile yourself with the fact that if there is an improvement in SG's capability, that this is a suggestion of utter stupidity (your words not mine). Or are you suggesting that no one should ever consider a suggestion if it improves things. lol.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Asian Aussie said:
Gundams and transformers? What the hell are you talking about? The majority of my posts are aimed at lionnoisy's stupid posts. What the fuk are you reading? I think I've backed myself well enough to call you stupid. You post up here advocating aircraft carriers for SG, now you say you're only investigating the feasability. Huge change in tone all of a sudden if you ask me.
-------------------------------
That's why I said you can't read. The topic title is called "A Singapore aircraft carrier?" with a ?. Apparently you read a question mark (?) as advocacy. Your assumption is that a possibility can only be considered with a one-sided view/assumption that it can't be done.
If I do not question what I regard as weak assumptions, it would indeed be rightly considered "utter stupidity". Huge change of tone? You can't read. Let me repost my conclusion in the first post. If you still can't understand what is the meaning of the word "possibility", I'd be glad to explain.
"There are a lot more factors to consider and detailed studies would be needed, if not already done, to consider the possibility. But in conclusion, whether Singapore will one day operate an aircraft carrier should no longer be considered far-fetched and enter the realm of objective analyses."
Objective analysis, thats a good way to put things.
Then for the purpose of objective analysis, we also need to consider the threats Singapore face.
Currently, the main concern is with Terrorism. In terms of military "threats", and I use it loosely, are M'sia and Indonesia. At the moment, and at least for the next couple of years, it does not look as if they are going to acquire capabilities that will require us to counter with a leap in force projection capabilities. At least not any that I know of.
Yes, the benfits of having a floating bird farm are plenty indeed, but the costs of keeping one operating effectively and efficiently are also high. So, it problem is not really "feasibility", but whether it will be even necessary, or cost effective.
I am not going to post up another long post because I have further exams coming up and replying to some of the garbage here is both time wasting and unproductive.
I will say this. One of your key arguments in supporting an aircraft carrier was the saving of valuable SG land. You've based at least 60% of your argument on this premise.
Now I will destroy this premise.
In your previous post, you propose only moving a squadron of fighter jets onto an aircraft carrier, as seen below. You said that by moving only one squadron, other countries wouldn't see it as big a threat.
A CVL doesn't exactly carry a large number of aircraft (we're probably talking about 12-24 a/c per BPC) and is probably more limited in sustainment ie only when a CVL takes to sea. 4 tankers can easily support sustained L-R ops for more aircraft for a possibly far longer time. The example of Israel undertaking operations such as the Osirak strikes is one such example.
A sqn is not sufficient to threaten nations located further. In the case of nations nearer, it makes no difference in terms of numbers/sorties capacity.
My argument is HOW DOES ONLY ONE SQUADRON SAVE UP ON VALUABLE LAND? If you move one squadron, you still can't close the airbase because you still have other squadrons that need it. PLUS what about all the other planes like trainers, tankers and transport? They need those airbases as well. So your argument is totally fuked!!!! The only way SG could practically save land is to consolidate its airbases into less airbases. I wanna see you stupidly argue your way out of this one you dumbass and yes I am mudslinging now just like you. Stop trying to act all innocent, you know you've been mudslinging as well, so go fuk yourself. Perhaps you should propose tanker aircraft carriers as well! LOL!
And you can't fuking read you simple person.
First you claim that a CV is used like 25% of the time (see above), then you claim that the available hours has been increase?
You mean if I base aircraft on land and then shift it to an aircraft carrier, its not shifting aircraft from land to sea? lol.
The range of the aircraft can be extended similarly by tanker aircraft, as acknowledged by yourself. How different is the capability of an aircraft at sea vs an aircraft on land to have a "multiplier effect" as claimed? lol.
How do you reconcile yourself with the fact that if there is an improvement in SG's capability, that this is a suggestion of utter stupidity (your words not mine). Or are you suggesting that no one should ever consider a suggestion if it improves things. lol.
Where the fuk do I claim that a CV is used 25% of the time? I said specifically that the Thais use their CV 25% of the time. How the fuk can you mix this up? The availability of hours is a totally different argument that doesn't even have anything to do with this. How you can blur these two totally different points is beyond me.
As for improving SG's capability, first you argued that an aircraft carrier didn't improve SG's capability because it was merely moving aircraft from land to sea. Therefore other countries don't need to be scared. I argued that it was an improvement due to increased range, flexibility. Now you say, we should consider improving things ie. Or are you suggesting that no one should ever consider a suggestion if it improves things lol.
First you said it wasn't an improvement, now you say it is an improvement. What side of the fuking fence do you sit on? Maybe you should impale yourself on the fence!
Objective analysis by arse.
Like Shotgun said, if you wanna be objective, consider things that are more suitable for SG's situation.
He's given one or two good examples and I've given a few examples in my previous post as well.
Your post also outlines your lack of situation awareness. Why does SG require heavy tonnage "destroyer-disguished frigates" or systems capable of tracking thousands of targets when the sea space it operates in does not have that kind of battlefield considerations? SG is not in Europe with that kind of density of air ops.
If Aegis was necessary, SG would not have gone for the Formidables but a heavier class of frigate. The capabilities are always structured to meet the conditions in which a piece of equipment is expected to operate in. Same reason why Australian "destroyers" which you conveniently term just to demonstrate your inobjectivity, have less tonnage (though it obtained the Aegis as a reflection that the Australians expect to operate in far denser conditions). The above does not justify why SG's current fleet cannot perform the escort role equally well in the context of its operational needs and conditions.
Where the fuk did I say Aegis was necessary? I said specifically that support ships were required for a CV. Support ships that SG doesn't currently have. The Formidables are good ships, totally appropriate for SG's situation. They're not good enought to protect a CV with millions of dollars of fighters on them.
And SG doesn't have good enough subs at the moment as well. So yeah, I am saying SG's current fleet cannot perform the escort role well atm. If you put a big prize out there on the water (ie your CV) other countries will be pretty fuking determined to sink it. Therefore you need quite a bit to defend it.
OMG! Shotgun called aircraft carriers force projection capabilites.
Why don't you try and shoot that down as well slim10? HAHA.
In case someone wants to burn me for critisising the Formidables, I will state more clearly what I am saying.
The Formidables are totally appropriate for their current role for SG. Very good ships.
However to support a CV, they are not. The Formidables are jack of all trades ships that are general purpose and not strong enough to defend a CV in outright attack.
Chill out guys....
I think what TS meant was that we shouldn't rule out mini-CVs; which is not entirely a bad point.
What I meant was that, given the present situation, we still don't have need for them.
Situations may change in 10-20 years, like who knows right? If the situation in future calls for it, the ability to project firepower out to sea and further away from home, then perhaps it would be worth considering then.
Everybody relax...
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:I am not going to post up another long post because I have further exams coming up and replying to some of the garbage here is both time wasting and unproductive.
I will say this. One of your key arguments in supporting an aircraft carrier was the saving of valuable SG land. You've based at least 60% of your argument on this premise.
Now I will destroy this premise.
In your previous post, you propose only moving a squadron of fighter jets onto an aircraft carrier, as seen below. You said that by moving only one squadron, other countries wouldn't see it as big a threat.
A CVL doesn't exactly carry a large number of aircraft (we're probably talking about 12-24 a/c per BPC) and is probably more limited in sustainment ie only when a CVL takes to sea. 4 tankers can easily support sustained L-R ops for more aircraft for a possibly far longer time. The example of Israel undertaking operations such as the Osirak strikes is one such example.
A sqn is not sufficient to threaten nations located further. In the case of nations nearer, it makes no difference in terms of numbers/sorties capacity.
My argument is HOW DOES ONLY ONE SQUADRON SAVE UP ON VALUABLE LAND? If you move one squadron, you still can't close the airbase because you still have other squadrons that need it. PLUS what about all the other planes like trainers, tankers and transport? They need those airbases as well. So your argument is totally fuked!!!! The only way SG could practically save land is to consolidate its airbases into less airbases. I wanna see you stupidly argue your way out of this one you dumbass and yes I am mudslinging now just like you. Stop trying to act all innocent, you know you've been mudslinging as well, so go fuk yourself. Perhaps you should propose tanker aircraft carriers as well! LOL!
And you can't fuking read you simple person.
First you claim that a CV is used like 25% of the time (see above), then you claim that the available hours has been increase?
You mean if I base aircraft on land and then shift it to an aircraft carrier, its not shifting aircraft from land to sea? lol.
The range of the aircraft can be extended similarly by tanker aircraft, as acknowledged by yourself. How different is the capability of an aircraft at sea vs an aircraft on land to have a "multiplier effect" as claimed? lol.
How do you reconcile yourself with the fact that if there is an improvement in SG's capability, that this is a suggestion of utter stupidity (your words not mine). Or are you suggesting that no one should ever consider a suggestion if it improves things. lol.
Where the fuk do I claim that a CV is used 25% of the time? I said specifically that the Thais use their CV 25% of the time. How the fuk can you mix this up? The availability of hours is a totally different argument that doesn't even have anything to do with this. How you can blur these two totally different points is beyond me.
As for improving SG's capability, first you argued that an aircraft carrier didn't improve SG's capability because it was merely moving aircraft from land to sea. Therefore other countries don't need to be scared. I argued that it was an improvement due to increased range, flexibility. Now you say, we should consider improving things ie. Or are you suggesting that no one should ever consider a suggestion if it improves things lol.
First you said it wasn't an improvement, now you say it is an improvement. What side of the fuking fence do you sit on? Maybe you should impale yourself on the fence!
That's why I said you can't read. I'm also amused by the lengths to which you go to insult others when you lack logical arguments.
As seen in first post on page 3, it will explain how a mini-cv might apply in the context of rebasing of a single sqn vs sqns.
In the context of saving land, as per the first post on page 1, the alternative is not just less airbases but possibly building a replacement airbase albeit a smaller one. The runway at PLAB is 12k ft long. A F-5 needs only 2.9k ft to take off. That already is 4 times the use of runway space necessary to efficiently operate F-5 a/c. Again in the context of fewer airbases, as highlighted but as you can't read I will reiterate, is that impact on sorties rates and the ability of remaining airbases to base additional a/c needs to be looked at. If remaining airbases are under-utilised, then rebasing a/c to those bases will not have significant impact at least on sortie rates.
On the issue of availability and sortie rates, one needs to have an open mind to accept that to every argument, there are both positives and negatives. Hence rather than attempting to skew arguments in one-direction only as you have done which results in strange contradictions, one accepts that there will in most cases be trade offs.
As to your suggestion on impalement, I think your ability to offer advice is somewhat questionable, hence I would politely decline.
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:Objective analysis by arse.
Like Shotgun said, if you wanna be objective, consider things that are more suitable for SG's situation.
He's given one or two good examples and I've given a few examples in my previous post as well.
Ignoring a potential $billion cost savings on rebasing of aircraft is indeed a display of stubborn "intelligence".
Originally posted by Shotgun:Chill out guys....
I think what TS meant was that we shouldn't rule out mini-CVs; which is not entirely a bad point.
What I meant was that, given the present situation, we still don't have need for them.
Situations may change in 10-20 years, like who knows right? If the situation in future calls for it, the ability to project firepower out to sea and further away from home, then perhaps it would be worth considering then.
Everybody relax...
Seconded...this is getting out of hand. It's just a theoretical discussion! Let's just crack our teeth on it.
Originally posted by slim10:Ignoring a potential $billion cost savings on rebasing of aircraft is indeed a display of stubborn "intelligence".
Slim
I do not understand your point either. From what I gather
1. You first suggest that an entire sqn be relocated to a CV
2. Then you suggest that the CV carry a small compliment of (IIRC) 12 aircraft
So do you shift the squadron or not? If yes, then your $billion savings is high. But then your operational costs increase as you have to protect a floating runway.
If you do not shift the squadron, or shift only half of it, then are there any real cost savings as you still require the original airbase?
On further thought - would procurement of additional aircraft for the CV be necessary i.e. AWACs?
Originally posted by chanjyj:Slim
I do not understand your point either. From what I gather
1. You first suggest that an entire sqn be relocated to a CV
2. Then you suggest that the CV carry a small compliment of (IIRC) 12 aircraft
So do you shift the squadron or not? If yes, then your $billion savings is high. But then your operational costs increase as you have to protect a floating runway.
If you do not shift the squadron, or shift only half of it, then are there any real cost savings as you still require the original airbase?
On further thought - would procurement of additional aircraft for the CV be necessary i.e. AWACs?
My pleasure to clarify.
The definition of a sqn is loosely used. It can be anything from 4 to 24 or more aircraft.
So let's say 48 a/c needs to be relocated from 1 airbase to the remaining 2 airbases, without a CV, that means each of the remaining 2 airbases has to take 24 a/c each.
If let's say each airbase only has the capacity to hold only 20 each, then the capacity difference of 8 can be housed in a CV that holds 8 a/c. Of course, if an airbase can only hold 12, then a CV that houses 24 a/c is needed, ceteris paribus.
In simple words, not all relocated a/c has to be housed in CVs. It can be a small number. But as indicated by other forum members, the smaller the number, the less effective the CV will be. Hence any analysis has to consider what is the effective size of a CV vis a vis cost (as the larger the CV, the greater the cost).
Nevertheless, I have stated that in the context of the region, lower number of a/c can be effective due to the region's a/c and naval ship density.
It is likely that a small CV will have some difficulty with operating fixed wing AEW. There are options eg AEW helicopter. Alternatively, land based AEW coverage can be relied upon if cost is an issue. Don't forget that a single G550 has a pretty extensive radar coverage (200nm+), not to mention range.
In fact, I would think a CV can even protect AEW/MPA a/c even better in some scenarios. That's because due to space limitations, AEW can only operate within SG airspace boundaries with a degree of safety eg escorts. If AEW/MPA operates outside SG airspace, it would be much more difficult maintaining sufficient escorts to protect such assets at distance ie logistics, endurance, locality considerations etc.
Originally posted by Sepecat:show
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.
From the posts I clearly see that I am not the only sceptic.
You are absolutely correct that there is no need for you to belabor tediously to enamour me to your concept of SAF having a CV. My lack of comments on this thread is a clear sign that this topic is not worthy of my time. Good luck.
Originally posted by Sepecat: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.
Noted. Nothing wrong with being a sceptic. My intentions are not to convince sceptics like yourself but to state my pov. I do not expect anyone to agree, though they are welcome to.