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...
Good call.. in the course of the debate, somehow the points given by TS seemed to have been nitpicked based on pet views.
Somehow personal views become more entrenched and negatively advanced without looking at the full text - that showed a more relevant point mentioned by the TS and unfortunately ignored in the course of the deepening argument on one point.
Was the TS post only about the aircraft carrier per se or was there more to it ?
Whilst aircraft carriers are often associated with force projection, in Singapore’s case, the necessity would more likely be driven by the lack of space rather than any desire for force projection since it has no foreign interest to defend.
Tactically, it would enhance Singapore’s security by not limiting itself to the confines of its territorial waters thus increasing its potential dimension of operations.
Singapore's limited land space is a known point, no matter where a runway is placed on the island of Singapore, it becomes an obvious target.
Given the limited space, how many more runways can the SAF build ?
Can this limit in land space also put a ceiling on the number of air-combat assets that Singapore can buy ?
As stated by TS, the "floating aircraft carrier" may not necessarily be one that need to sail all around the globe, but could present Singapore with an alternative to the limited prospects of having any new airbase on land.
just to add to existing points, if PLAB is considered, the impact on existing MRO business out of Paya Lebar will need to be taken into account as well.
True that there are severe space restrictions in building runways. But I believe the more challenging matters are that of air traffic control situations in the air.
Instead of getting more aircraft, and requiring more runways or prospective CVs, we can aim for force multiplier effects instead. Getting more top of the line fighter/attack aircraft, better technologies such as SDBs, JDAMs that increase sortie rates and all-weather capabilities, better AWACs and C4ISR capabilities.
Ideally, we can retire our old F-5s in favor of more advanced aircraft that can be integrated into a network -centric battle management system. By having more effective sorties, we reduce the number of aircraft required for operations. Isn't that a better all round solution than just "more runways" and CVs?
Runways and CVs themselves contribute little to striking power, and yet they require huge amounts of money to build and maintain. More efficient systems and aircraft on the other hand have a direct positive correlation to striking power.
Scenario A,
just buy (eg 48) more advanced aircraft.
Total cost = $4.8b at $100m each.
Scenario B,
Sell large airbase = $12b generated.
Less relocation cost of existing businesses = $2b.
Less cost of building new airbase (5 times smaller but with more runways) or CVs = $4b.
Buy 48 more advanced aircraft at $125m each which allow shorter take-off and smaller airbase = $6b.
Total cost = $0.
Which scenario should a person prefer?
Originally posted by Atobe:
Good call.. in the course of the debate, somehow the points given by TS seemed to have been nitpicked based on pet views.
Somehow personal views become more entrenched and negatively advanced without looking at the full text - that showed a more relevant point mentioned by the TS and unfortunately ignored in the course of the deepening argument on one point.
Was the TS post only about the aircraft carrier per se or was there more to it ?
Singapore's limited land space is a known point, no matter where a runway is placed on the island of Singapore, it becomes an obvious target.
Given the limited space, how many more runways can the SAF build ?
Can this limit in land space also put a ceiling on the number of air-combat assets that Singapore can buy ?
As stated by TS, the "floating aircraft carrier" may not necessarily be one that need to sail all around the globe, but could present Singapore with an alternative to the limited prospects of having any new airbase on land.
I could see that work within a regional defence structure but i could also see that not working. If another regime has ill intention towards SG alone.
Originally posted by Asian Aussie: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.
Asian Aussie, your comments that Formidables are not strong enough to defend a CV is wrong ! Formidables are good jack of all trade ship - they are multi-mission frigate - armed with the lastest weapon to defend again multiple air, sea, underwater. That is exactly where the threats to the CV comes from. Is that not cover the job of CV escorts ?
Outright attack ? Since you from aust - let me assume 8 x aust f-18 attack the CV + 2 formiable escort + 1 sub escort + 1 victory escort. Remember CV would have its own aster missile defence + chaff. We are talking about 3 ship (CV + 2 formiable) that have radars and systems that would be able to track and engage mulitple f-18s and even any harpoons that f-18s manage to fire !!!
Between these 3 ship they have between them enough aster missiles for even the whole aust airforce. Even if one or two F-18 or harpoon penetrated the aster defence layer - they still have to face 3 oto 75mm guns, barak missile ( don't forget the victory) and chaff.
From my view Forimables are good ship, enough to do that job - the question is who in this region enough good planes to try a outright attack ?
Originally posted by storywolf:Asian Aussie, your comments that Formidables are not strong enough to defend a CV is wrong ! Formidables are good jack of all trade ship - they are multi-mission frigate - armed with the lastest weapon to defend again multiple air, sea, underwater. That is exactly where the threats to the CV comes from. Is that not cover the job of CV escorts ?
Outright attack ? Since you from aust - let me assume 8 x aust f-18 attack the CV + 2 formiable escort + 1 sub escort + 1 victory escort. Remember CV would have its own aster missile defence + chaff. We are talking about 3 ship (CV + 2 formiable) that have radars and systems that would be able to track and engage mulitple f-18s and even any harpoons that f-18s manage to fire !!!
Between these 3 ship they have between them enough aster missiles for even the whole aust airforce. Even if one or two F-18 or harpoon penetrated the aster defence layer - they still have to face 3 oto 75mm guns, barak missile ( don't forget the victory) and chaff.From my view Forimables are good ship, enough to do that job - the question is who in this region enough good planes to try a outright attack ?
The onboard F-35s will probably knock off the aggressor a/c as well as any pesky surface vessels far earlier than the FFGs could. The FFGs are just there to take on the leakers and provide ASW helo support.
Subs are probably the main concern. However, in the big ocean, having 4 subs will need a lot of guess work, time, intel and luck to detect a CV group, much less pursue or intercept one.
I disagree that Formidables are strong enough to defend a CV. Storywolf, you are predicting that the attack is solely coming from the air. In real life it will be a mixture of both sea and air. Therefore assuming 8 F18s is too simplistic.
As for F35s on board dealing with a/c threats and ships. Whilst I understand Oz and SG will never face each other, I think it's simplistic to say F35s will deal with everything.
For starters, Oz would have F35 as well so they're harder to deal with than F18. If Oz sent forward it's AWDs that would make it much harder for the F35s to penetrate and target the battle group sent to meet the SG CV. Oz would also send its subs out hunting as well.
Formidables are good multimission ships but that's the point of it. Multimissions ships, good all rounder but master of none.
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:I disagree that Formidables are strong enough to defend a CV. Storywolf, you are predicting that the attack is solely coming from the air. In real life it will be a mixture of both sea and air. Therefore assuming 8 F18s is too simplistic.
As for F35s on board dealing with a/c threats and ships. Whilst I understand Oz and SG will never face each other, I think it's simplistic to say F35s will deal with everything.
For starters, Oz would have F35 as well so they're harder to deal with than F18. If Oz sent forward it's AWDs that would make it much harder for the F35s to penetrate and target the battle group sent to meet the SG CV. Oz would also send its subs out hunting as well.
Formidables are good multimission ships but that's the point of it. Multimissions ships, good all rounder but master of none.
Rather than stating that any ship is just not good, it might be a good idea to point out specifically how so. Are the formidables lacking in a piece of equipment that is needed for CV escort? Are the Formidables lacking in performance in any area that is required?
Otherwise, its provides others with the impression that it is not sufficient because one person says so.
btw, I did not state that the F-35 will deal with everything. However in the context of the region where the F-22, Eurofighter, Rafale are noticeably missing, I am hard-pressed to find an aircraft type that the F-35 can't deal with...
can we keep it to a platform ? CVN / baby carrier / escort carrier or flat top vessel ?
i cant see how expanding into a SG versus the world comparison thing would be of any good.
this is degenerating into a lionnoisy-esque SG chest thumping exercise. why would SG be even going against Australia ? they are among our friendliest allies. even renting us land to train and real places where the leopard 2 can actually run about instead of going in loops in area D.
lets keep this friendly, civil and nice and not step into SG vs ???land territory. bad thing to do IMHO.
and storywolf, less you forget, the upcoming canberra class.
anyone buys a potential sceanario where SG, AUS, thailand and Japan and maybe potentially india, depending on which politician is in power at that time, form a "coalition" of willing, maybe in some form of semi-formal agreement to check and balance the rise of china ? part of the USN's 1000 ship fleet to practice active conegagement?
a baby CV which is envisaged to operate alongside the canberra class in "joint operations" would make sense for SG. afterall, we are talking about keeping the balance of power strong enough to have a meaningful deterrent capability to a rising china. (basing on Mearshimer's tragedy of great power politics, where a regional hegemon is always balanced off by its neighbours who fear its rise will challenged the established hegemon, i.e US)
If the RSAF wants to exploit the concept of off-shore runway as a way to reduce the number of air bases on the mainland, it would/could have done so a long time ago.
If we are discussing procurement of LHDs, it is a low priority project as compared to other RSN new capability/acquisitions for the next decade or two.
I never said the ship "is just not good", I said it's not good enough in the CV escort role. In the current climate it is a fine ship.
I'm not an expert on the Formidables but I think I've spotted one possible weakness if it were to be used in CV escort role.
The Formidable is currently using Aster 15 missiles as its anti-air weapon. The Aster 15 has a range of 30km. Harpoons have a range in excess of 100km. The Formidables lack a medium range missile such as a SM2.
I have questions regarding the Herakles radar as well. I could only find some hearsay information regarding it. Information regarding radar systems is generally limited.
As for the F35, another aircraft that can match the F35 is another F35! Otherwise in the SE Asia region, there is a possibility that the SU-30MK might match them. The Malays, Indos, Viets, Chinese and Indians have them I think.
If SG wants to play a major role in checking the balance of power within SE Asia and China regions, then it should simply just maintain its defence force to a high standard as it currently is. Add perhaps 2-4 high quality subs that can assist in defending key waterways like the Malacca Straits plus keep the Indo Kilo Class subs in check.
Spending money on CVs or even LHDs is highly ambitious and likely to take away from some other part of the defence force. If SG wants to be part of a larger coalition, then I think the best way is to have a navy that is complementary to the USN. That is ships that can join and operate with the USN's Carrier Strike Groups and Expeditionary Groups. The frigates are a good example.
double post
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:I never said the ship "is just not good", I said it's not good enough in the CV escort role. In the current climate it is a fine ship.
I'm not an expert on the Formidables but I think I've spotted one possible weakness if it were to be used in CV escort role.
The Formidable is currently using Aster 15 missiles as its anti-air weapon. The Aster 15 has a range of 30km. Harpoons have a range in excess of 100km. The Formidables lack a medium range missile such as a SM2.
I have questions regarding the Herakles radar as well. I could only find some hearsay information regarding it. Information regarding radar systems is generally limited.
As for the F35, another aircraft that can match the F35 is another F35! Otherwise in the SE Asia region, there is a possibility that the SU-30MK might match them. The Malays, Indos, Viets, Chinese and Indians have them I think.
Just this from me.
What makes you think the Aster 15 cannot be developed? And...why would you need a SM2 when the Harpoon can do it all? The Formidable-class packs a greater punch that all the stuff you hear.
Which is basically a good thing in fact.
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:I never said the ship "is just not good", I said it's not good enough in the CV escort role. In the current climate it is a fine ship.
I'm not an expert on the Formidables but I think I've spotted one possible weakness if it were to be used in CV escort role.
The Formidable is currently using Aster 15 missiles as its anti-air weapon. The Aster 15 has a range of 30km. Harpoons have a range in excess of 100km. The Formidables lack a medium range missile such as a SM2.
I have questions regarding the Herakles radar as well. I could only find some hearsay information regarding it. Information regarding radar systems is generally limited.
As for the F35, another aircraft that can match the F35 is another F35! Otherwise in the SE Asia region, there is a possibility that the SU-30MK might match them. The Malays, Indos, Viets, Chinese and Indians have them I think
Asian Aussie, you are wrong,
Formidable do have medium range missile which is comparable to SM2. They are armed also with Aster 30, which range is close to SM2. Remember the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, think that is a classical example of - can shoot further does not mean it is good .
Harpoon have excess range of 100km, so you mean they are 100% acurate, cannot be intercepted by aster 15 or cannot be defeated by chaff ?
Remember USS Stark ? They are armed with SM-1 !
Let look at SE Asia - to see the estimated number of Su-30 ?
malaysia (18)
china (100)
india(120)
indonesia(3)
Vietnam(12)
Yes if you want to fight the chinese & indians - with their big navy and airforce - even US carrier group are in trouble ..... !!!
The rest, they have too vast a terrority to defend, make it hard for them to risk assembling a strike force which could use up 1/2 to all of their su-30 !!!
SBS2601D, I never said the Aster 15 could not be developed. In fact there's already the Aster 30. As for comparing the SM2 to a Harpoon, what the heck are you on about? The SM2 and Harpoon aren't compared due to different roles. You should be comparing the Aster 30 to the SM2. You don't have a damn clue about what's going on, because these mistakes you make are basic mistakes that more informed ppl woundn't be making. At least slim10 has some background. You're hopeless.
If the Formidables were to upgrade to Aster 30, then they would also have to upgrade their radar and sensors to accommodate for the increased range of the Aster 30 as well. At 3200t displacement, this would be a difficult (but not impossible) task.
And if you want to say that the current Herakles radar is good enough, then suit yourself. However other countries wouldn't be spending a heap load of money on more advanced radars for no reason, would they?
As for storywolf, Formidables do not have Aster 30 yet. They could have, but I can only comment about the present. If you want to compare the reliability of a Harpoon vs an AIM54 Phoenix that's up to you. Can you seriously risk your ships to danger just because a missile might not be reliable? Regardless of this bizarre point you make, I'm sure the Harpoons are reliable enough.
As for the USS Stark, it is a OHP class frigate. The Americans don't really rely on their OHP for offensive duties do they?
The rest, they have too vast a terrority to defend, make it hard for them to risk assembling a strike force which could use up 1/2 to all of their su-30 !!!
Your comment above is an assumption, pure speculation that doesn't warrant a response.
storywolf, I am going to use the logic of SBS2601D to answer your question regarding USS Stark.
What makes you think the SM1 can't be developed?
Haha.
Anyone out there willing to leave aside their patriotism and blind love for SG, and analyse the Formidable objectively?
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:storywolf, I am going to use the logic of SBS2601D to answer your question regarding USS Stark.
What makes you think the SM1 can't be developed?Haha.
Anyone out there willing to leave aside their patriotism and blind love for SG, and analyse the Formidable objectively?
As for storywolf, Formidables do not have Aster 30 yet. They could have, but I can only comment about the present. If you want to compare the reliability of a Harpoon vs an AIM54 Phoenix that's up to you. Can you seriously risk your ships to danger just because a missile might not be reliable? Regardless of this bizarre point you make, I'm sure the Harpoons are reliable enough.
Asia Aust
We did cast aside our patriotism & blind love. And analyse objectively. It is you who is analysing with old data, that is what everyone trying to indirectly correct you on - "Formidables do not have Aster 30 yet ? ". Think it is time for you to update your information ....
http://updatedfrequently.com/turkey-singapore-join-efforts-to-combat-piracy-in-gulf-of-aden
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0108/index.php
I am not comparing the reliability of a Harpoon vs an AIM54.
I using AIM54 - to remind you that longer range and better radar does not mean it is the best !
Your point is best rader like aegis - better radar + SM2 = best. Don't it sound just like AIM54 - longer range + F14 better rader = best .... yes that what the US navy make you think .... but by now we know the truth, they did not really perform that well ....
I want to point out that you are the one who is bias of aster 15 - just because it is shorter range. AIM-9 sidewinder -short range, plane need not have the great radar - to date 250- 300 kills . It may not be the best but it get the job done.
Point is - weapon system cannot be blindly judge on their effective, blindly based on better radar range or better missile range !!!
Sgstars this is my view.
I think Singapore should be interested in looking into much smaller Helicopter carrier - something much smaller then Hyūga-class or Dokdo class around 9,000 - 10,000 tons. ( 6 - 8 helicopter )
Catering less in area of amphibious & aircraft capabilities. It be giving up tonnes, but making up for more economical, less manpower to man, more slimline, faster, more economical. It also be design to be more of jack of all trade type - like our current LST - use a command boat, patrol and others, not too expensive or wasteful or have too excessive capabilities or airwings - if use for peace time patrol or other support operation.
As we operate Chinooks, from the Tsunami incident - our LST not really design for Chinooks operation.
A little Heli carrier like this, will still depend on the airforce for initial neutralising of enemy 1st and air superiority role. They provide a forward transport base, providing transport support with Super puma, Chinooks & maybe aphaches for basic forward close air support. I think putting f-35 onto a carrier like this will be wasteful and would not tap the full potential of the F-35, unless very specialise mission require by it.
A sister ship when side by side in bigger operation- would provide a more decent and repectable 12 - 16 heli. Depending on the need, to operate alone or with sister ship - this will give a lot flexiable and more effective use.
Originally posted by storywolf:Sgstars this is my view.
I think Singapore should be interested in looking into much smaller Helicopter carrier - something much smaller then Hyūga-class or Dokdo class around 9,000 - 10,000 tons. ( 6 - 8 helicopter )
Catering less in area of amphibious & aircraft capabilities. It be giving up tonnes, but making up for more economical, less manpower to man, more slimline, faster, more economical. It also be design to be more of jack of all trade type - like our current LST - use a command boat, patrol and others, not too expensive or wasteful or have too excessive capabilities or airwings - if use for peace time patrol or other support operation.
As we operate Chinooks, from the Tsunami incident - our LST not really design for Chinooks operation.A little Heli carrier like this, will still depend on the airforce for initial neutralising of enemy 1st and air superiority role. They provide a forward transport base, providing transport support with Super puma, Chinooks & maybe aphaches for basic forward close air support. I think putting f-35 onto a carrier like this will be wasteful and would not tap the full potential of the F-35, unless very specialise mission require by it.
A sister ship when side by side in bigger operation- would provide a more decent and repectable 12 - 16 heli. Depending on the need, to operate alone or with sister ship - this will give a lot flexiable and more effective use.
Just for accuracy, Dokdo is 18.8k ton. Hyuga is 18k ton.
The canberra/strategic projection ship displaces ~27k. The mistral displaces ~21.3k ton.
Crew wise: Canberra (243), Mistral (176), Dokdo (300), Hyuga (360).
The europeans have very good automation techniques.
In contrast, CVLs:
Chakri Nareubet: 11.5k ton
Principe de asturias: 17.2k ton
Guiseppe Gariboldi: 13.3k ton
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:If the Formidables were to upgrade to Aster 30, then they would also have to upgrade their radar and sensors to accommodate for the increased range of the Aster 30 as well. At 3200t displacement, this would be a difficult (but not impossible) task.
Not really. If you could access the brochure (which was originally in the link below), I think you'd note that it is stated that the Herakles radar which equips the Formidables as well as some of the Fremm FFGs is compatible with the Aster 30:
www.thales-naval.com/naval/pdf/herakles1.pdf
Unfortunately my copy of the downloaded pdf is in another laptop in another country. You might want to ask around if anyone else has a copy to confirm or write to thales for a copy. We had that discussion a couple of years back in the DT forum. If you were to ask if SG's Formidables actually has the Aster 30, then that's another issue but the radar is definitely capable of supporting the Aster 30 which shouldn't be surprising considering that the range of the aster is 100km whilst the radar has a 250km range.
The Range of the Aster 15s are sufficient to deal with Harpoon class subsonic AShMs IMO. Its the supersonic AShMs that are a bit worrying, but who would pop one of those big mean mofos off at a little frigate it can barely lock on to?
Throw in a couple of towed decoys, the Formidable is pretty survivable on its own.
The problem with escorting a mini-CV as Asian Aussie rightly mentioned, is covering them from precisely those type of AShM threats. The Formidable now has to ensure the survival of the CV, and not just itself. Its a bit tricky with Aster 15s I believe. Considering Harpoons can be launched from the air, following navigation points that can lead to a multi-axis endgame on pop-up, the tight range of the Aster15s might not be able to cope with that.
There definitely is a requirement of a different configuration of the Formidable to function as an AAW escort. However, keeping in mind that they are multi-mission frigates, I won't discount the likelihood of such a possibile reconfiguration if there is a need for it. =D
Originally posted by Shotgun:The Range of the Aster 15s are sufficient to deal with Harpoon class subsonic AShMs IMO. Its the supersonic AShMs that are a bit worrying, but who would pop one of those big mean mofos off at a little frigate it can barely lock on to?
Throw in a couple of towed decoys, the Formidable is pretty survivable on its own.
The problem with escorting a mini-CV as Asian Aussie rightly mentioned, is covering them from precisely those type of AShM threats. The Formidable now has to ensure the survival of the CV, and not just itself. Its a bit tricky with Aster 15s I believe. Considering Harpoons can be launched from the air, following navigation points that can lead to a multi-axis endgame on pop-up, the tight range of the Aster15s might not be able to cope with that.
There definitely is a requirement of a different configuration of the Formidable to function as an AAW escort. However, keeping in mind that they are multi-mission frigates, I won't discount the likelihood of such a possibile reconfiguration if there is a need for it. =D
The french carrier -Charles de Gaulle - also have aster 15 + chaff and other counter measures on itself , thus it is design to defend itself. Thus i would assume - aster 15 and chaff would be onboard the cv .. thus combine with formiable , there is a good chance of neutralizing the threat.
frankly if the same scenrio happen to a ship armed with SM2 - think it too face the same issue. of may not intercept on time.
Originally posted by Shotgun:The Range of the Aster 15s are sufficient to deal with Harpoon class subsonic AShMs IMO. Its the supersonic AShMs that are a bit worrying, but who would pop one of those big mean mofos off at a little frigate it can barely lock on to?
Throw in a couple of towed decoys, the Formidable is pretty survivable on its own.
The problem with escorting a mini-CV as Asian Aussie rightly mentioned, is covering them from precisely those type of AShM threats. The Formidable now has to ensure the survival of the CV, and not just itself. Its a bit tricky with Aster 15s I believe. Considering Harpoons can be launched from the air, following navigation points that can lead to a multi-axis endgame on pop-up, the tight range of the Aster15s might not be able to cope with that.
There definitely is a requirement of a different configuration of the Formidable to function as an AAW escort. However, keeping in mind that they are multi-mission frigates, I won't discount the likelihood of such a possibile reconfiguration if there is a need for it. =D
Even if the FFGs are equipped with aster 30s (or aster 60s if there's such a thing in the future), that's not going to stop air launched harpoons. Principally, low level/stand-off pop up attacks are always a b*tch to tackle without air cover. Same reason why sea-dart armed DDGs in Falklands couldn't prevent exocet firings from the Super Etendards.
The best solution is early AEW detection with air cover ie CVs. The problem with land based air cover is the endurance and positioning. Cue: That's the principal role of the escort carrier.