RSN,what abt a battleship?
-
I have an idea that can solve the land use problem in singapore and the manpower problems in singapore.
Firstly what we need are battle islands. Imagine giant floating platforms linked together. For servicing, each individual platforms can be towed back to CNB for repairs. As for manpower problems, we can have the entire base transplanted onto the base. We won't have a need to find new people since people who can work on mindef HQ can work on the floating platforms.
We have no problems making floating platforms. The US government even contracted ST Marine to build a offshore platform for surveillance purposes.
We can have even airbases that can launch F-16s and F-15s. Currently only F-18, Rafale and Su-33 (su-27 variant) are naval capable.
The best part is that these bases are mobile. Somewhere in the south china sea. That mitigates the first strike vulerability we have. Then we can lower our need for "extra" forces to counteract that threat. This translates to lower manning requirements. -
Someone asked what chould be done with the present missile gunboats? I guess they are a little bit too much for the police coast guard, since the PCG don't have much use for missiles... Safe bet is probably to put them in a dry dock for a bit and modernise the boat a little, and then eventually selling them to another navy which may need them more....
then again, strip it of missiles, guns and associated systems, i suppose i won't mind having one for a fast houseboat!.
-
hmm. cool idea. while we're at that, y dont we build gundams as well. den when ppl attack our battle isles, our gundams can jump out and shoot them!Originally posted by RussianPower:I have an idea that can solve the land use problem in singapore and the manpower problems in singapore.
Firstly what we need are battle islands. Imagine giant floating platforms linked together. For servicing, each individual platforms can be towed back to CNB for repairs. As for manpower problems, we can have the entire base transplanted onto the base. We won't have a need to find new people since people who can work on mindef HQ can work on the floating platforms.
We have no problems making floating platforms. The US government even contracted ST Marine to build a offshore platform for surveillance purposes.
We can have even airbases that can launch F-16s and F-15s. Currently only F-18, Rafale and Su-33 (su-27 variant) are naval capable.
The best part is that these bases are mobile. Somewhere in the south china sea. That mitigates the first strike vulerability we have. Then we can lower our need for "extra" forces to counteract that threat. This translates to lower manning requirements.
crap aside, it feasible, mayb a few missile battle isle may be helpful towards our defence and deterrence. howeva, such installations will oso need more guards.(imagine our isle being towed away under our noses ), big problem. singapore no babies, no guards. i have an easier solution: place 155m howitzers on the top of hdb flats in woodlands and aim them at our dear neighbour. =D much less hassle. -
Wah lau!Originally posted by Groovee:hmm. cool idea. while we're at that, y dont we build gundams as well. den when ppl attack our battle isles, our gundams can jump out and shoot them!
crap aside, it feasible, mayb a few missile battle isle may be helpful towards our defence and deterrence. howeva, such installations will oso need more guards.(imagine our isle being towed away under our noses ), big problem. singapore no babies, no guards. i have an easier solution: place 155m howitzers on the top of hdb flats in woodlands and aim them at our dear neighbour. =D much less hassle.
.Seriously,most original and effective idea I have heard about deterrence.Best way to counter their MLRS system.You shoot me with rockets,I shoot you with 155 mm Howitzers from every bloody HDB roof in the whole bloody island at Johor Bahru.
Now that is deterrence.or maybe overkill. -
From a civil engineering point of view, I do not believe that the roof are sufficiently well reinforced to withstand the recoil of 155mm. The placement of the howitzer on the roof top would immoblise the 155, leading them vulnerable to counter battery. The fixtion of them would prevent them from being deploy for other missions which are equally important. It would be blazingly obvious to your intention if you see 155 sprouting up on roof top all over the place. Regarding the floating island concept, this idea is being proposed for as a replacement for the US Kadena Air Force base in Okinawa. It would be prohibitively expensive, would require a high manpower expenditure and they are fixed assets. There are manpower requirements in MINDEF and you cannot just transfer them. From another posting [DefensE cost is crippilingOriginally posted by Sardaukar:Wah lau! .Seriously,most original and effective idea I have heard about deterrence.Best way to counter their MLRS system.You shoot me with rockets,I shoot you with 155 mm Howitzers from every bloody HDB roof in the whole bloody island at Johor Bahru.
Now that is deterrence.or maybe overkill.
STA], surely there are better ways to spend our dollars. -
Another addendum to the battle island concept. These mobile bases are not neccessary invulnerable to first strike. You would want to base them a distance not too far from Singapore so as to allow the assets base on them to be usable in a crisis. Looking at the geography of the region, they will probably be within range of any adversary air bases. You would need to invest heavily as well in their defense since they would be isolated outpost and cannot be effectively reinforced. They would turn out to be prime targets for attacks. There are numerous other disadvantages that I mentioned as well.
-
battleships for RSN and now island bases? You people have fantastic imagination...
-
The battle island I have in mind is not as huge as to be immobile. It is not the same as the U.S. base concept. Imagine an aircraft carrier but much larger.
As for the deployment, of course it's not going to be deployed in the straits... the only time it's going to be there is when parts of it are towed for servicing.
In the case of defensibility, do you think our airbases/army camps are defensible in the event that our enemy, whoever it may be, attacks first? Is there any secret that we can keep in this crowded island of ours?
As for the cost, think of the amount of land that could be freed up for commercial use if most of the airbases/ military bases are put to sea?
Why do you think most nuclear nations put their arsenal in submarines? France puts 90% in SSBNs. Britain intends to have 100%. -
South China Sea and the Indian Ocean are very big places.
Reinforced? Do you think we can be reinforced in Singapore?
Why do you think americans are putting their nuclear deterrent on submarines? Are they invulnerable to first strike? No? but hell you can't keep track of them reliably.
Isn't Changi Airport, Paya Lebar Airport, Tengah Airport prime targets?
Fighters flying CAP are hell better than SAMs on the ground. Even with "outdated" SAMS even the americans had to go in with their tomahawks, F117s and B2s before they let their F-18s soften the targets futher.Originally posted by solaris:Another addendum to the battle island concept. These mobile bases are not neccessary invulnerable to first strike. You would want to base them a distance not too far from Singapore so as to allow the assets base on them to be usable in a crisis. Looking at the geography of the region, they will probably be within range of any adversary air bases. You would need to invest heavily as well in their defense since they would be isolated outpost and cannot be effectively reinforced. They would turn out to be prime targets for attacks. There are numerous other disadvantages that I mentioned as well. -
a battle island or island base would only cause chaos... this will make targeting for any aggressors simple... you have to think of the human factor in this... won't it put the lives of those living under theses batteries at risk? construction of these batteries publicly would upset these people living under these batteries and definately lead to international intervention by all sorts of unions. i definately won't be able to sleep at night knowing that my roof is a possible target for any crazed nation to strike at.
mobile batteries would make more sense as they're harder to target and can be moved as and when needed. with regards to national security i think we should not get it confused with the showing off of our power. We're rather safe considering the US use our island to berth some of the carriers and destroyers every couple of months. -
the straits are too small for container ships,oil tankers and battleships
to use together. -
thats not true, we have a deep habour that allows any ships to berth here.. even the biggest. if not how would our port do its business? with regards to the acquistion of a battleship, logistically we can and our waters allow it... but its a matter of whether its feasible or not considering we have no interests to protect overseas other than pedra branca...Originally posted by epImetheus:the straits are too small for container ships,oil tankers and battleships to use together. -
Too small not too shallow......Originally posted by hotwire:thats not true, we have a deep habour that allows any ships to berth here.. even the biggest. if not how would our port do its business? with regards to the acquistion of a battleship, logistically we can and our waters allow it... but its a matter of whether its feasible or not considering we have no interests to protect overseas other than pedra branca... -
HelloOriginally posted by RussianPower:The battle island I have in mind is not as huge as to be immobile. It is not the same as the U.S. base concept. Imagine an aircraft carrier but much larger.
As for the deployment, of course it's not going to be deployed in the straits... the only time it's going to be there is when parts of it are towed for servicing.
In the case of defensibility, do you think our airbases/army camps are defensible in the event that our enemy, whoever it may be, attacks first? Is there any secret that we can keep in this crowded island of ours?
As for the cost, think of the amount of land that could be freed up for commercial use if most of the airbases/ military bases are put to sea?
Why do you think most nuclear nations put their arsenal in submarines? France puts 90% in SSBNs. Britain intends to have 100%.
Well before I go on, just to clarify that I am obviously not terribly enthusiastic about the battleship and island bases in our context. I guess I did not apply a strict interpretation to the term "mobile". I meant that the mobility is not that of a ship and such and cannot be deployed flexibly. I never did assume that you mentioned that it would be deployed in the straits. Obviously such platforms can only be deployed in the South China Sea with its proximity to foreign air bases. A large relatively immobile base is of a different visible profile than a SSBN. A submerged SSBN in the Atlantic Ocean is very different from a large Nimitz class size object in the South China Sea. Of course I fully subscribed to the advantage of having a submarine based nuclear deterrent. I am merely stating that the context is different. One possible use of such a platform if I hold your argument of freeing up land space would be to perharps to be used it as an fix extension of a base instead of reclaming from the sea.
Nothing is 100% defensible; we can only try our best to make it so. A naval base or air base in Singapore at least have the benefit of being under the air defense umbrella (Ref: various articles in Cyberpioneer and Tim Huxley [Defending the Lion City] A floating base in the South China Sea would be rather isolated in comparison.
Fighters flying CAP are hell better than SAMs on the ground. Even with "outdated" SAMS even the americans had to go in with their tomahawks, F117s and B2s before they let their F-18s soften the targets futher. Pardon my ignroance but I do not understand this statement.
Reinforced? Do you think we can be reinforced in Singapore? This is a rather contentious issue. The reinforcement I meant in my post was that for example should Changi Naval Base comes under attack, at least it would be under the protection our our air defense umbrella rather than being on its own such as the mobile base that you are mentioning. Whether we as a nation can be reinforced would probably depend on who is reinforcing us. This is my own simplistic view of things. If we are to bring in our assets overseas during hostility in our own transports IE RSAF C130 or Singapore chartered aircraft/RSN LST or Singapore flagged merchant ships, perharps that would be difficult but if it was an American led effort (assuming that the Americans are really such great pals
) it would be different. A history of the American reinforcement of Israel during the Yom Kippur War is illuminating in such aspects.
Such are my humble opinions, please do not get too pissed off with me....please please please
-
i mean the Straits of Malaysia(the body of water between Malaysia & Indonesia) & the Straits of Singapore(the body of water between Singapore & Indonesia) which ships have to pass through B4 getting into the harbour.Originally posted by hotwire:thats not true, we have a deep habour that allows any ships to berth here.. even the biggest. if not how would our port do its business? with regards to the acquistion of a battleship, logistically we can and our waters allow it... but its a matter of whether its feasible or not considering we have no interests to protect overseas other than pedra branca... -
Is that right?Originally posted by RussianPower:We can have even airbases that can launch F-16s and F-15s. Currently only F-18, Rafale and Su-33 (su-27 variant) are naval capable.
A off-the-head listing of Naval aircraft (not including helos), bearing in mind that we only want aircraft still in active service:
MIG-29K
SU-33K
SU-25UTG
Super Etendard
Harrier
F-14 Tomcat
F-18 Hornet
E-2C Hawkeye
C-2A Greyhound
S-3 Viking
ES-3 Viking
EA-6B Prowler -
*thinks really hard*Originally posted by RussianPower:Why do you think most nuclear nations put their arsenal in submarines? France puts 90% in SSBNs. Britain intends to have 100%.
Um, because it costs uber-huge amounts of $$$ to build ICBM silos? Also bear in mind that such installations should not be placed near cities, due to a iffy factor in nuclear warfare called "counterforce/urban-industrial" strike.
The gist of the idea is that... your missile installation is within XX mile of civilian city. Under "normal" rules, strikes against missiles are allowed, but not cities. But... if a high CEP missile is used, we're not responsible if it goes off target, or by the way, killed millions of lives with the blast effects/fallout. -
Technically yes. America has always held a markedely superior submarine force. It is common knowledge that during the early years of the Cold War, every last SSBN was trailed by a SSN. In case of the balloon going up, or a missile tube being flooded, the policy was shoot first, ask later.Originally posted by RussianPower:Why do you think americans are putting their nuclear deterrent on submarines? Are they invulnerable to first strike? No? but hell you can't keep track of them reliably.
Fighters flying CAP are hell better than SAMs on the ground. Even with "outdated" SAMS even the americans had to go in with their tomahawks, F117s and B2s before they let their F-18s soften the targets futher.
Hell better, yes, in a sense. I wonder why the NVA never did have a viable airforce till the final years of the Vietnam war. And yet, the amount of expected losses in that war, surpass any save the World Wars. How? Lots of AAA and SAMs.
If one wants to argue the point further, AH-64A Apaches and SpecOps men were the ones who struck the first blows at the Iraqi air defense complex. You see, not even America likes to risk it's high tech warplanes so much. -
Yes. Strong message.Originally posted by tripwire:uhmmm... if ever we are ever allowed to get TLAM and TASM... i think we can just install them inside the bukit timah hill and viola... we still send a strong message but no need the stupid BB.
"Please move your ASTROS launchers as close as possible to Bukit Timah, and launch a couple of those 90km range 300mm rockets"
The crux of the matter is that a ship, or a plane can move. Or why then does both Russia and America maintain Airborne Command Posts just in case? Hell, you can bet your last dollar that Cheyenne Mountain is targeted for a LOT of hurt.
(The mountain where SkyNet is supposed to be installed) -
hello JohnstonOriginally posted by Johnston:*thinks really hard*
Um, because it costs uber-huge amounts of $$$ to build ICBM silos? Also bear in mind that such installations should not be placed near cities, due to a iffy factor in nuclear warfare called "counterforce/urban-industrial" strike.
The gist of the idea is that... your missile installation is within XX mile of civilian city. Under "normal" rules, strikes against missiles are allowed, but not cities. But... if a high CEP missile is used, we're not responsible if it goes off target, or by the way, killed millions of lives with the blast effects/fallout.
I am a believer of a SSBN based nuclear deterrent - the strategic dogma of western nuclear powers. However the Russians and Chinese seems to be believers in a land base alternative as well. A significant portions of the Russian arsenal (This might have change from the Soviet time) seem to be based in land based mobile launchers (their Strategic Rocket Force) and this apply to the Chinese as well. I am not talking about IRBM or tactical battlefield nuclear weapons but rather strategic nuclear weapons
In your opinion, what could be their rationale for the continued use of land base launchers? Could it be a hedging of bets or the reduced complexity and costs of developing and maintaining such systems?
Regarding your post of the NVN success in blunting American air power, you are right to highlight their success but you have to bear in mind that by the end of Linebacker 2 and Rolling Thunder (the earlier episode), the Americans had achieved virtual air supremacy over North Vietnam. It was political consideration such as the fear of killing Soviet personnel or the fear of Chinese intervenation that prevented them from obliteraing key targets such as Haiphong. A air defense umbrella based on SAM/AA guns alone is also much more vulnerable than an integrated one. Witness the destruction of the Syrians SAM batteries in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon through the creative use of UAV and innovative EW tactics by the IAF or the gaining of air supremacy over Europe by the Allies through the grounding and attrition of the Luftwaffe. The Flak defenses in the latter case hampered the bomber offensive but did not cause as much a disruption as would have occured had the Luftwaffe strength been preserved. -
too small? i don't think its too small for all the 3 types of ships to operate on the straits altogether... they just have to be extra careful when navigating if not the RSN Courageos type accident will repeat itselfOriginally posted by |-|05|:Too small not too shallow...... -
Funding does not just appear out of thin air...
The cost of building one BB could easily go into providing body around for our troops, and the resulting combat effectiveness improvement would be far more damage we can dish out in our context then a BB can do.
Besides in our waters, there's little place for a BB to run, and we don't exactly have that large a fleet to protect it as well. There's little rationale for building a BB when other surface combatants will meet our needs nicely and within cost as well. -
Quite simple really. "Don't put your eggs in one basket".Originally posted by solaris:hello Johnston
In your opinion, what could be their rationale for the continued use of land base launchers? Could it be a hedging of bets or the reduced complexity and costs of developing and maintaining such systems?
It was political consideration such as the fear of killing Soviet personnel or the fear of Chinese intervenation that prevented them from obliteraing key targets such as Haiphong. A air defense umbrella based on SAM/AA guns alone is also much more vulnerable than an integrated one. .
You forgot to mention the air arm of the Triad.
B-52s! B2s! B1s! F117As!
By diversifiying their nuclear arsenal, they make it extremely unlikely that a single pre-emptive strike, no matter how massive, can take them all out.
Besides, land based missiles are infinitely easier to safeguard. Ring a missile installation with one or two motor rifle battalions, toss in a couple of heavy ADA installations, and garnish with a tank battalion ready to response.
By safeguard, it also helps ensure there are no rogue launches. Somewhere along the line of Peacekeeper and Crimson Tide. You never really know if that janitor might be an Internal Security agent.
While im not intimately familiar with the Vietnam war, i do know that a COMPLETE air defense complex, such as was possible during the Cold War, virtually ensures your base's survival. While we're on the subject of wars in the middle east, you may be interested to know that during a certain war, the IAF's airforce was effectively out of action during the first few days due to the Syrian's ADA complex. -
Regarding the effectiveness of a complete air defense system invulnerabilityOriginally posted by Johnston:Quite simple really. "Don't put your eggs in one basket".
You forgot to mention the air arm of the Triad.
B-52s! B2s! B1s! F117As!
By diversifiying their nuclear arsenal, they make it extremely unlikely that a single pre-emptive strike, no matter how massive, can take them all out.
Besides, land based missiles are infinitely easier to safeguard. Ring a missile installation with one or two motor rifle battalions, toss in a couple of heavy ADA installations, and garnish with a tank battalion ready to response.
By safeguard, it also helps ensure there are no rogue launches. Somewhere along the line of Peacekeeper and Crimson Tide. You never really know if that janitor might be an Internal Security agent.
I am aware of the US unholy trinity but after the introduction of the SSBN into the trinity, most of the nuclear deterrent role was shifted from the land based silos and SAC to the SSBN. The % of the arsenal remaining in the US silos was insignificant vis a vis the % of the Soviet arsenal in the mobile launchers. Air Force planners of that era were aware of the tremendous casaulties and difficulties of executing their nuclear mission should a nuclear war break out. How could the B52 and others penetrate the Soviet air defense after their less than expected performances against the NVN air defenses. Then again, I am in general agreement with your assesement of the hedging of bets via land based launchers. Some minor points of contention: a massive pre emptive strike would not knock out all the SSBN. I could imagine why the Chinese would want to develope a land based alternative. Their current Xia class SSBN probably would not survive in a heavy ASW environment against the USN and their operation in a "protected bastion" such as the Yellow Sea would probably have to depend on the ability of the PLAN to protect such a bastion - a rather risky strategy in view of the USN superiority. Hence a land based alternative would in contrary to western dogma be a safer bet
While im not intimately familiar with the Vietnam war, i do know that a COMPLETE air defense complex, such as was possible during the Cold War, virtually ensures your base's survival. While we're on the subject of wars in the middle east, you may be interested to know that during a certain war, the IAF's airforce was effectively out of action during the first few days due to the Syrian's ADA complex.
that would be the event I would use reply in defense of an AA/SAM umbrella effectiveness. That was in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 when the Egyptians and Syrians constructed a dense air defense barrier over the Suez Canal and the Golan Heights. They exacted such a toll on the IAF that the IAF were forbiddened to operate within 15 miles of the Canal. It was only after the IDF ground forces punched holes in the barrier by destroying the ground sites that the barrier was significantly breached, restoring the IAF freedom of operation. However the same system did operate during the Vietnam War and the Americans were able to overcome it. This being a relatively comtemporary event of the Yom Kippur War leads us to infer that should the Israelis possesed the brute force of the Americans - who have the luxury of being able to devote substantial air assets to SEADS/Wild Weasel sorties, the air defense barrier would probably have been overcome. There is no instance (pardon my ignorance if I am wrong) of a truly invulnerable air defense barrier. Whether the Soviet Air Defense system would constitute such an invulnerable barrier would fortunately have to be a thereotical speculation -
seems that building and maintaining a BB is not that feasible in singapore's context. sadly, my idea of howitzers in woodlands dun work too.
mayb instead of one large BB, we can build many 'mini-BBs'? u noe...like instead of carriers we have LSTs etc. mayb something like an up-ped destroyer or something. imagine RSN having a fleet of LSTs, delta frigates and uber-destroyers.