STOVL fighters for our LSTs?
-
The Yak-141 Freestyle is the world first supersonic STOVL fighter in the world. I think that it will be good to have a little air surpport for our LSTs taking part in possible more dangerous peace keeping missions. Since we are most likely to get the JSF we may consider getting the marine variant. Although we may not need this capability now but i think in the future when more countries in our region have acquired mini carriers such as Thailand, the STOVL fighters can be useful. We have to take note of the high possibility of China getting carriers as well, which are most likely to be carrying their upgraded fleet of Su-27s. Please comment.
-
yeah..but wouldn't it be better to get VTOL UAVs?Originally posted by tankee1981:The Yak-141 Freestyle is the world first supersonic STOVL fighter in the world. I think that it will be good to have a little air surpport for our LSTs taking part in possible more dangerous peace keeping missions. Since we are most likely to get the JSF we may consider getting the marine variant. Although we may not need this capability now but i think in the future when more countries in our region have acquired mini carriers such as Thailand, the STOVL fighters can be useful. We have to take note of the high possibility of China getting carriers as well, which are most likely to be carrying their upgraded fleet of Su-27s. Please comment.
or even a UCAV carrier in the future?
just some wild thoughts
-
harrier can perform the same task as apache right even though the harrier is getting old...1 thing that fails harrier is the noise and not tactial enough...
-
i once suggested it in forums before, and
some pple flamed me..saying it will lead to arms race..
and speed slow..etc..
Harrier Max is about MAch 1..
apache is 360 km/hour(F1 car)
F-35 is super fast..but the deck in LST too small to equip the plane.. -
Ppl flamed you because you cannot get out of your 2 dimensional world.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:i once suggested it in forums before, and
some pple flamed me..saying it will lead to arms race.. -
Don't think a STOVL jet can fit on our LST. And doubt we have the budget to buy & maintain carriers, even small ones. Since SAF is investing a lot in UAV research, maybe one day they'll have an armed UAV capable of launching missiles.
-
Don't think a STOVL jet can fit on our LST. And doubt we have the budget to buy & maintain carriers, even small ones. Since SAF is investing a lot in UAV research, maybe one day they'll have an armed UAV capable of launching missiles & attach one of these to our LSTs or stealth frigates.
-
It can be introduced onto our LST, perhaps onli 1 JSF per ship, however ask yourself is it a wise decision?
1) Take away a landing pad for 2+ helicopters for 1 JSF that mean 8+ Helicopters for 4 JSF.
2) 1 JSF per LST, 4 JSF in the fleet.
In any amphibious operation, heli and air support is crucial. However you must know that by removing 8+ Helicopters for 4 JSFs, you are diminishing our heli-support drastically and the improvement in air support by 4 JSF is going to be negligible.
So is it a smart move? -
no lah 1 LST so big can at least accomodate 1 on the flight deck another 1-2 within the bowels along with 1 small workshop.Originally posted by foxtrout8:It can be introduced onto our LST, perhaps onli 1 JSF per ship, however ask yourself is it a wise decision?
1) Take away a landing pad for 2+ helicopters for 1 JSF that mean 8+ Helicopters for 4 JSF.
2) 1 JSF per LST, 4 JSF in the fleet.
In any amphibious operation, heli and air support is crucial. However you must know that by removing 8+ Helicopters for 4 JSFs, you are diminishing our heli-support drastically and the improvement in air support by 4 JSF is going to be negligible.
So is it a smart move?
Nowsadays to kill an aircraft carrier you ony need 1-2 moskit missle worth USD200k and half a billion worth of equipment and aircraft goes down like the titanic. This way you actually spread the risk.
It's a good camoflage to build the mini carrier to look exactly like a LST that way the enemy confused and cautious. -
I doubt u have been on board the LST and i doubt u know the SOP.Originally posted by arburthen?:no lah 1 LST so big can at least accomodate 1 on the flight deck another 1-2 within the bowels along with 1 small workshop.
RSAF/RSN SOP and callings: The amount of aircraft the ship can carry is based on how many aircraft the hanger can accomodate. In peacetime, the LST will always carry only the amount of aircraft it's hanger can carry, thats the RSAF SOP which they want the RSN to follow. However in wartime, SOP might change to accomodate what the hanger and the flight deck and carry, that will onli at most result to 2 JSF on the LST (one in hangar and the other in the flight deck).
If you board any of the LST and if you had seen at least the mock up of a JSF, 2 JSFs even with folded wings within the hangar is impossible. -
SG'S LST looks impressive and huge on TV cause it is placed side by side
with A PV..
place the LST next to a AMERICAN aircraft carrier *coughs*
our LST is small ..cannot blame lar..
the ST shipyard in jurong oso quite small -
People flame you because you are unrealistic, you wanted a small carrier that operate planes which need thousand of sailors which we did not have. Or cannot afford. People say things back by facts. Your is totally irresponsible, which you did not even count the number of sailor need for a aircraft carrier, and the cost.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:i once suggested it in forums before, and
some pple flamed me..saying it will lead to arms race..
and speed slow..etc..
Harrier Max is about MAch 1..
apache is 360 km/hour(F1 car)
F-35 is super fast..but the deck in LST too small to equip the plane.. -
erm... singapore?? carrier??
the only way those two words will ever appear in the same sentence is:
singapore will never have a carrier...
not so much due to the fact of lack of funds and manpower... cos all that can change in the future...
but the fact that we will never become a world superpower that would need a carrier to keep everyone else in check...
and besides... we dont have a character like bush... do we?? -
Dey, comparing a LST with a carrier is like comparing a Mazda with a 3 tonner. I would've expected a self proclaimed knowledgable person like you to know better than make this kind of silly comparison.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:SG'S LST looks impressive and huge on TV cause it is placed side by side
with A PV..
place the LST next to a AMERICAN aircraft carrier *coughs*
our LST is small ..cannot blame lar..
the ST shipyard in jurong oso quite small
The size of Jurong shipyard is not the issue. Even if it was large enough, the fact is ST Shipbuilding lacks the funds & expertise to make a carrier.
It is neither affordable nor practical for RSN to have an aircraft carrier. Should the day come that we can afford a carrier, the money would be better spent on other things, such as replacing our aging fleet of MGBs or PVs.
And LST is a landing ship tank as the acronym implies. You load a few ground vehicles into it, sail to somewhere, off load these ground vehicles. That's about it. Since its reasonably large, it can accommodate 2 copters for either SAR or anti-submarine purposes. That's about it.
A LST is NOT meant for accommodating jets or other fanciful thing that you have in your imagination. If we wanted something for accommodating jets, we would've bought over Thailand's white elephant of an aircraft carrier, which is currently sitting in the docks rusting away as they can't afford to send it out to sea. -
we can use apache to catch pirates right or even terrorists....
-
neh..when SBSK becomes the prime ministerOriginally posted by ce7o:erm... singapore?? carrier??
the only way those two words will ever appear in the same sentence is:
singapore will never have a carrier...
not so much due to the fact of lack of funds and manpower... cos all that can change in the future...
but the fact that we will never become a world superpower that would need a carrier to keep everyone else in check...
and besides... we dont have a character like bush... do we?? -
I was thinking of a triple mode variable fighter. It's not an impossible dream. All the world needs to see is a video demonstration of a scaled model in the air.
"It will tip the balance of power." -
That's a good idea.
However ,our LSTs are too small to hold and support Harriers.
For your info, LSTs can hold maximum 2 Super Pumas.
I have already suggested last time that Super Tanker ships can be converted to Light Aircraft Carrier of HMS Invicible size.
Alternatively, we can purchase Kiev or Minsk Light aircraft Carrier from Russia.
Kiev or Minsk class is the heavily armed Aircraft Carrier armed with long-ranged anti-ships missiles, anti-air missiles , torpedoes,and guns.
It is no longer in existence , but we can get Russian Shipbuilder to build one. -
similanjiao?Originally posted by Noeyessee:we can use apache to catch pirates right or even terrorists.... -
I dunno what they call it but MAERSK Shipbuilder has one light aircraft carrier converted from a container tanker. Was shown in janesOriginally posted by fkh:That's a good idea.
However ,our LSTs are too small to hold and support Harriers.
For your info, LSTs can hold maximum 2 Super Pumas.
I have already suggested last time that Super Tanker ships can be converted to Light Aircraft Carrier of HMS Invicible size.
Alternatively, we can purchase Kiev or Minsk Light aircraft Carrier from Russia.
Kiev or Minsk class is the heavily armed Aircraft Carrier armed with long-ranged anti-ships missiles, anti-air missiles , torpedoes,and guns.
It is no longer in existence , but we can get Russian Shipbuilder to build one. -
Have large ships mean nothing without the ancillary systems.
Thailand has an aircraft carrier, its' so expensive to maintain, that it is kept in port all the time. Size isn't everything. UK explored deploying the Harrier on large container hauling merchant ships like the Alantic Conveyer (later sunk by exocet). It was deemed that such deployment was impractical and had marginal benefit.
Problems like refueling, repairs, routine maintenance plus navigation equipment, weapons systems support (targeting data entry) etc make deploying aircraft on an LST a fool's dream (or a cockmanie idea dreamt up by airchair genrals).
with a V/STOL aircraft runway length is not an issue but without the support, deployment will spread your assets without corresponding benefit of coverage, depth or sustainability. Even an off-site airfield on land takes up a lot of precious assets and preparation. The key to air operations is tempo which is either sustained by closeness to target, loiter time, haulage (for bombs) and turnaround time. The biggest secret in RSAF is aircraft availability and sortie rate.
This thread sound like a previous experiment to deploy our 155mm on another platform (before the current Primus program) which failed spectacularily. -
what i meant was deploy them on ships. can hunt down for pirates and terrorists on the malacca straits. no need for similanjiao...right..Originally posted by the.raven:similanjiao?
-
got pirates and terrorists on Malacca straits???Originally posted by Noeyessee:what i meant was deploy them on ships. can hunt down for pirates and terrorists on the malacca straits. no need for similanjiao...right.. -
i may be dumb but at least i know Apache is configured for anti tank warfare =D
Apache on water..funny joke.. -
You are even dumber than you think. Helicopters can be configured to perform in other conditions. Never heard of the sea cobra?Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:i may be dumb but at least i know Apache is configured for anti tank warfare =D
Apache on water..funny joke..