A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
Originally posted by rAMIRez32str:
Instead of an aircraft carrier, an amphibious assault ship is better as it is smaller, cheaper and also requires smaller manpower capacity.
Seen here is an American amphibious assault ship, USS Bataan..
Even with a smaller manpower requirement the SAF would have manpower problems.
An aircraft carrier, or even an amphibious assault vessel such as the USS Bataan is like a mini-city. It has to have all the trappings of a city. Mini-marts, bars, laundromat, cafes, library, post office, medical centre, gym, cinemah, these aside from the aircraft technician, commandos, medics, sailors, gunners, etc, etc, etc.
Filling the manpower requirements with Singaporens would mean drawing from elsewhere, and creating a shortage in other arms of the SAF.
But then Singapore is capable of starting in a no-nonsense fashion, like North Korea, the ship 100% military, no frills. Everyone dread being posted there.
-
Originally posted by rAMIRez32str:
Instead of an aircraft carrier, an amphibious assault ship is better as it is smaller, cheaper and also requires smaller manpower capacity.
Seen here is an American amphibious assault ship, USS Bataan..
The question is really what kinda role do expect such manpower extensive ships to play? Some of the forumers here who have been on board ships such as these can tell you that the amount of crew needed to support such a vessel will be hugely taxing on the limited manpower of the Navy. Even if we were to automate everything, it would still be a significant toll.
The costs of maintaining such a ship itself would be exorbitant. Unless Singaporeans don't mind paying $10 everytime the ERP gantry goes beep, I can't imagine where the money for such a ship would come from.
-
3-4b to build aircraft carrier? use this money to build and boost naval warships better than a white elephant.
-
From the good points that you have replied to my post, there is actually not a need for Singapore to aquire these types of naval assets. Since the military's mission is to defend this country, it means to repel attacks that may happen within our borders. Also, these types of ships are really slow, n land based personnel could be delayed tremendously.
Well, it seems Singapore really made a wise choice investing in those Chinooks...
-
build yer own carriers.....
-
Originally posted by rAMIRez32str:
From the good points that you have replied to my post, there is actually not a need for Singapore to aquire these types of naval assets. Since the military's mission is to defend this country, it means to repel attacks that may happen within our borders. Also, these types of ships are really slow, n land based personnel could be delayed tremendously.
Well, it seems Singapore really made a wise choice investing in those Chinooks...
wrong post -
Partisan (pardon the pun) view arguing against Mistral sale...
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4406851&c=FEA&s=COM
But natural gas in return is franc-ly too much for the French to pass up...
-
UK carriers program mission under pressure
Article, click here.
-
we do not have enuff fighters to operate full time on the carriers..
and building a carrier means the navy gotta support it as well.. basically we dont have that much equipments to carry it out even if the cost is affordable by our means..
and besides carriers are meant more for offensive purposes, which singapore isnt.
-
Without a sizeable fleet to defend it as well as the resupply fleet, the aircraft carrier's just going to be one big steel based tomb isn't it?
-
dun think so lar. might as well use the money to spend on upgrading and buying of fighter jets, helicopters and warships, esp the ageing jets and warships.
-
Use the money to build, maintain and enhance heavy bombers...
just like the EB-52 Megafortresses
-
Ever considered a possibilities of modern submarine launch Jet Seaplane?
-
is there a nice hotel room in the war5ship???
-
Or, i rather they revive the Typhoon Class submarines and fit it with the latest technology
-
i heard someone mentioned a russian submarine got olympic sized swimmin pool init....wonders which one
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
Ever considered a possibilities of modern submarine launch Jet Seaplane?
The question is be for what purpose would it serve?I mean you can't really carry that much planes to deal a significant punch, obviously you can't carry heavy bombers and most important of all it would be difficult for your planes to be resupplied. The problem also comes with retrieving the plane.
I see a possibility for a strike at a strategic strike but wouldn't a submarine with tactical launch capability serve as a more practical choice?
-
Submarine-launched anything is expensive. Also has range limited to where the submarine can go (although tomahawks have greater reach but that won't be in SG's inventories). Submarine also cannot carry many missile. Air force munitions are far cheaper and reloaded far more frequently. However, aircraft need a place to take off. Whether this is a land base or a CV often depend on which is cheaper. SG land cost is not cheap particularly when it occupy central area eg Paya Lebar. CV limited by size.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
The question is be for what purpose would it serve?I mean you can't really carry that much planes to deal a significant punch, obviously you can't carry heavy bombers and most important of all it would be difficult for your planes to be resupplied. The problem also comes with retrieving the plane.
I see a possibility for a strike at a strategic strike but wouldn't a submarine with tactical launch capability serve as a more practical choice?
You are right A modern jet seaplane if it ever developed would be limited purpose but would be able to launch from sub undetected and delivered a strategic surprised strike. It can be refuel thru submarine......
BUT with todays UAV technologies they could probably carries more than 1 or maybe a few to launch from sea and just maybe it is simply a one time usage....USED and THROW just like an Armed Burst.
stealth UAV for mission of strategic strike sneak into the coastline and launch against landbase facilities....and crash into the ocean after the mission, and submarine would net it back to friendly shore.
-
F2Y Seadart and P-6 seamaster. both demonstrate that the concept of jet seaplane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOrj2cSDO-M&feature=related
-
wtf with the money SBS can put more buses on the road
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
F2Y Seadart and P-6 seamaster. both demonstrate that the concept of jet seaplane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOrj2cSDO-M&feature=related
Those are interesting concepts. However, may not need subs to refuel. Just as easily be commercial tenders (or even Endurance LST) in int'l waters. -
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Those are interesting concepts. However, may not need subs to refuel. Just as easily be commercial tenders (or even Endurance LST) in int'l waters.yeah instead of having landing craft in LST but role out seaplane....there you go.
-
since S'pore is like garang-guni, why don't they ask if the Americans have any carriers from WW2-era mothballed to lelong ?
then see if the US willing to throw in the USS Iowa as well.................LOL
-
sg carriers got but small miniture ones. landing for choppers, troops carriers. Usually aircraft carriers powered by nuclear and may require no fleet escort since they have the fighter jets on boards dispacthed to fly the skies as their eyes and ears over their own radars syetms on board.