A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
Support svcs for FFGs and subs.
http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=1383
Singapore, 13 May 2009 - Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd (ST Engineering) today announced that its marine arm, Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd (ST Marine) has signed two separate Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with French defence powerhouse, DCNS, as well as Swedish submarine experts, Kockums AB, at IMDEXASIA 2009 which is being held at Singapore Expo.
The MOU between ST Marine and DCNS sets down the target date and other various activities leading to the execution of a joint venture agreement to provide an agreed scope of support to be contracted for the Republic of Singapore Navy's (RSN) six frigates. The other MOU is between ST Marine and Kockums AB, where a joint venture company is also in the works to be set up to offer a comprehensive suite of technical and maintenance support for RSN's submarines. The joint venture companies are expected to be formed when due diligence have been completed and contracts secured. -
Sea Fighter - Littoral Surface Craft-Experimental
It is designed to be a sea frame that can carry interchangeable mission modules resembling shipping containers. These modules allow it to be easily reconfigured to meet a variety of mission requirements, including mine warfare, anti-submarine operations, amphibious assault support, surface warfare, transport and logistical missions, cruise missile launch, and special forces interdiction operations. The mission modules are easily loaded and stored on Sea Fighter’s inner deck.
I think this is what would suit our Navy more. Capable of a floating platform for Helicopters / F-35, so can configure at the same time to service other purpose. -
The mission modules make the sea fighter a potential replacements/supplement for the MCMs, Fearless PVs, Endurance LSTs and the 600 ton Victory class corvettes.
They should call this the "bao ka liao" class.
Unlike the LCS class (which is a lot heavier than the sea fighter), the 1000 ton platform may be sufficient for the above. The sea fighter is a lot cheaper to build than the LCS.
The ~70m flight deck is too short for the F-35 STO take off but having a lot more helo decks + ASW helos will definitely aid ASW and also allow a lot more UAV ops.
Rear deck also designed for USV launch. Small crew size = cost savings + reduced manpower worries.
Brochure:
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Sure I did have a chance...But.
It is actually 24. 3 x 4 for each side.
As far as I recall.
Words fail me at this. I wonder who was the idiot for a procurement team who decided it was a good idea to procure that many Harpoons for a ship? There is a reason why all new Arleigh Burkes no longer use Harpoons anymore. SM-2s are more than enough to deal with enemy vessels.
-
With regards to the OP and the issue involving the Formidable Frigates, in theory, given that the Aster-15/30 have active radar, the issue then for them is whether the ship has sufficient processing capabilities to handle a saturation attack. The Herakles radar rotates, and that effectively cuts down the number of targets it can track and the resolution. This would be absolutely fine with the Aster-15 because of its pathetic range (it's worse than even the RIM-162 ESSM), but it will be a problem for the Aster-30. The Aster-30 likely needs terminal guidance in addition to active radar homing to achieve full capability. This effectively will reduce its ability to handle saturation attacks.
Now, against Malaysia and Indonesia, a heavy LHD like the Canberra class will be perfectly fine. The LHD can carry a squadron (or less) of F-35Cs. A helicopter can be used for AEW. The Brits do it, and so do the Russians. But if we are talking about a foe like China, the frigates won't cut it if dealing with swarms of fighters with small anti-ship missiles. 32 x 6 missiles would blow our frigates away.
-
The Singaporean Navy has already planned for a long time to purchase an AIRCRAFT CARRIER it's only now that the Singapore Defense Ministry has seriously considered buying one.
SINGAPORE is the leading military power in SOUTH EAST ASIA, ASEAN countries know that Singapore has the best Army in the region.
Charles de Gaulle (R91) is the only serving French aircraft carrier and is the flagship of the French Navy (Marine Nationale). She is the tenth French aircraft carrier, the first French nuclear-powered surface vessel, and the first and only nuclear-powered carrier built outside of the United States Navy. She is named after French statesman and general Charles de Gaulle.
The ship carries a complement of Dassault Rafale M and E-2C Hawkeye aircraft, as well as modern electronics and Aster missiles. She is the second largest European carrier, after the Admiral Kuznetsov. It is a CATOBAR-type carrier that uses a shorter version of the catapult system as that installed on the US Nimitz class carriers, the 75 m C13-3 steam catapult
-
a CV without proper portections from undersea ,surface and air threats
is just a big floating coffin!!
This is just like a elephant walking in jungle.Every one knows he is coming.
Anyone can ambush the elephant.
I would rather be a tiger or lion or a fox.Not many know my location.
But i can attack and run away,like SG frigates and subs!!
small but can kill NOW NOW NOW!!
Not in the future!!But here and now!!
Japanese CV were almost all sunk in WW2,after losing protections!!
http://www.ww2pacific.com/japcv.html
Japanese Aircraft Carriers
Key: red=sunk , blue=damaged , green=commissioned .
Name Type(a/c) Tons Commis Sunk By Where Comments Hosho CVL (11) 7,500 27Dec22 - - Kure Training ship Akagi CV (63) 36,000 25May27 04June42 CV Midway Kaga CV (72) 36,800 21Mar28 04June42 CV Midway Ryujo CVL (46) 10,500 9May33 24Aug42 CV EastSolomons Soryu CV (63) 17,500 29Sep37 04June42 CV Midway Hiryu CV (63) 17,500 5July39 05June42 CV Midway Zuiho CVL (24) 11,200 27Dec40 25Oct44 CV CapeEngano Shokaku CV (72) 27,000 08Aug41 19June44 SS-244 Marianas Taiyo CVE (27) 16,700 15Sep41 18Dec44 SS-269 off Luzon Zuikaku CV (72) 27,000 25Sep41 25Oct44 CV CapeEngano Shoho CVL (24) 11,200 26Jan42 07May42 CV Coral Sea Junyo CV (45) 24,100 05May42 09Dec44 SS off Sasebo Unyo CVE (27) 16,700 31May42 16Sep44 SS-220 S.ChinaSea Hiyo CV (45) 24,100 31July42 20June44 CV (50) Marianas Chuyo CVE (27) 16,700 25Nov42 04Dec43 SS-192 off Honshu Ryuho CVL (31) 13,400 28Nov42 - - Kure Ise BBV - C 1943 28July45 CV Kure Hyuga BBV - C 1943 24July45 CV Kure Chiyoda CVL (24) 11,200 31Oct43 25Oct44 CV CapeEngano Kaiyo CVE 15,400 23Nov43 24July45 CV Beppu Bay Shinyo CVE 17,500 15Dec43 17Nov44 SS-411 S.YellowSea Chitose CVL (24) 11,200 01Jan44 25Oct44 CV CapeEngano Taiho CV (62) 29,300 07Mar44 19June44 SS-218 Marianas Unryu CVL 17,300 06Aug44 19Dec44 SS-395 EastChinaSea Amagi CVL 17,100 10Aug44 28June45 air Kure Shinano CVB (70) 62,000 19Nov44 29Nov44 SS-395 Inland Sea world largest Katsuragi CV 17,300 15Oct44 Not service Kasagi CVL 17,300 incomplete 85% Ibuki CVL 14,500 incomplete 80% Aso CV incomplete 60% Ikoma CV incomplete 60% -
I am sure history will repeart itself.
Any CV without proper protection will be sunk!!
-
-
SG is in defence mode,not attacking mode to destorey enemy far away.
Therefore,CV to SG is just a white merlion.
SG Strait and Melecca Strait are just 2 good ambush locations TO ambush CV,
including SG CV!!
Dunt think any country possess a CV or a fleet of CV is a BIG country.
In 21st century,dunt adopt a WW2 mind set.
Thailand also get a CV which lack fund to sail!!
Pl take a balance in COST,BENEFITS and RISKS!!
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
By the way this flag is no longer in use and advised to be put aside ...except during big soccer events>LOL -
CV possess shorter or no advantage zone,
while other small ships may possess much longer advantage zone.
Sure SG frigates and other RSN assets possess to a certain degree.
http://www.kockums.se/products/products.html
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/344436?page=6#post_9136817
Pl correct me if i am wrong.CV's can be detected from outside
her'' interception range''(ie the range that CV can destory any threats).
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
By the way this flag is no longer in use and advised to be put aside ...except during big soccer events>LOL''' by Short Ninja@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Just to highlight the sad history of CV without proper protections!!
-
RSN is capable to expand her range by---
1,000 pax support ship---Is RSN planning Expeditionary Force
SG new USV capable for ASW,MCM & attack sea trial this Sept
@@@@@@@@@@@@
Also,6 air tankers and refuelling can extend the RSAF range,
-
I see someone saying Singapore has the best military force in the region under this topic.
Frankly speaking, I can only say Singapore army has the best military technology in the region.
But I am not sure about the best army part.
As a saying goes, "Its the man, not the machine."
As long as I see soldiers mishandling basic weapons like SAR21 or even M16s, best is not yet to be.
I don't think having an aircraft carrier is economical. It just too expensive to operate. Just imgaine the 1000 of sailors "jiak jua" during long sea trips, how much that cost on fuel and food.
And how about naval pilots?
Singapore Air Force has already having tough time recruiting the best to train pilots.
Even if we have a carrier, with SAF's defence posture, I don't see why the need for a whole bunch of personnel going out far at sea searching for invisible enemies in the region.
Currently, we have no countries which are hostile with us.
-
yeah i think it is expensive.
I was thinking why not look into more research on Short Airfield for Tatical Support. (STATS) ? I think using todays Nano fiber technology we could probably deployed a lighter and longer runway.
At this rate maybe the 1000 pax ship plug n play ship can be converted to a flat top in a very short period of time.
it can also be deployed oversea. U got an instance airfield up and running in 48 hours.
No risk of being the first to be targeted in a hostile environment, don't have to invest on support for the carriers. At the end of the day it is the runway and air projection we are interested not the ship.
The Short Airfield for Tactical Support (SATS) is
a rapidly constructed expeditionary airfield that can
be erected near a battle area to provide air support for
amphibious Marine forces. In any land-and-sea
military/contingency operation, the rapid assembly of
a temporary airfield provides ground units with the
distinct advantage of continuous air support on foreign
soil.
-
If I remember correctly, they did that (laid mats) for harriers onboard container ships.
Construction is fairly quick. 500 ft of AM-2 matting can possibly be laid in just 9 hours assuming flat deck (though field manual state standard is 1000 ft in 5 days with a 16 man crew. Some websites state <3 days per 1k ft during vietnam). However sustained ops will require a lot more than just runway. E.g. aircraft can literally roll off the deck so locking/stabilisation mechanisms needed esp in higher sea states.
If rsn/rsaf plans sustained ship-launched air ops at sea, then purpose built ship needed.
Good to know SG mainland itself got countless number of straight roads (even more for 500ft length or less) that can easily be strengthened very quickly into emergency runways if F-35Bs are operated. Fewer straight roads for other aircraft as longer roads needed.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
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?
Reviewed the cost of airbase construction. It will likely be a fraction of the $4b cost indicated above (possibly even under $1b).
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_701_07.pdf
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/Airports.pdf
The reason is that commercial airport cost are generally higher due to terminal costs which include sophisticated equipment such as baggage handling and handling of large airport which a military airport does not require. Further cost savings can be achieved by reuse of existing equipment. Also shorter runway length = lower cost.
New construction techniques can include runway hardening, underground HAS, etc.
-
Good, more ghost stories for Singaporean men to brag.
-
Interesting links to rand studies regarding USN CV cycles.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG706.sum.pdf
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR480.pdf20-35% of time in dock for maintenance. 40-50% of time in dock as standby (within 30/90 days). 20-30% of time in deployment ie at sea.
That means potentially 2-4 months at sea for CV training every year.
-----------------------------
Looked at the URA master plan available on ura.gov.sg. Have revised PLAB site area upwards to 6.7+ sq km. With historical land sales data from URA website (inner city median), I estimated yield may be as high as $33 billion from PLAB land sale. That will be able to fund 100 x F-35 acquisition and even additional tankers to boot.
-
<Bump>
-
Originally posted by Darth_Revan:
With regards to the OP and the issue involving the Formidable Frigates, in theory, given that the Aster-15/30 have active radar, the issue then for them is whether the ship has sufficient processing capabilities to handle a saturation attack. The Herakles radar rotates, and that effectively cuts down the number of targets it can track and the resolution. This would be absolutely fine with the Aster-15 because of its pathetic range (it's worse than even the RIM-162 ESSM), but it will be a problem for the Aster-30. The Aster-30 likely needs terminal guidance in addition to active radar homing to achieve full capability. This effectively will reduce its ability to handle saturation attacks.
Now, against Malaysia and Indonesia, a heavy LHD like the Canberra class will be perfectly fine. The LHD can carry a squadron (or less) of F-35Cs. A helicopter can be used for AEW. The Brits do it, and so do the Russians. But if we are talking about a foe like China, the frigates won't cut it if dealing with swarms of fighters with small anti-ship missiles. 32 x 6 missiles would blow our frigates away.
Heh, hang on a minute. The Aster 30's terminal guidance is an active radar right? It follows inertial mid course guidance with update, then its supposed to go active, that is according to their website. =D
-
A recent thread started to discuss small STOVL carriers in f-16.net in the context of USN/USMC.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12631-start-0.html
-
Now the russkis are looking at the mistrals...
-
VERY AMUSING INDEED!
it appears spore is now filled with hot air balloons without the hot air!
how do you kind people expect to build anything when none of you here have ever welded metal together or dealt with high tech manufacturing methods.i suppose u want it to be delivered like your cars or jetplanes.it wont be cheap just to buy some bunch of metal welded to one another or concrete etc .