Do Singapore need mini aircraft carrier?
-
i believe YES.
Singapore have highly quantity and quality Air-Force in SEA.
And having a mini aircraft carrier station at the malacca strait will sure improve the result of preventing pirate and terrorist.
So what are the difficulty? The mind-game of Malaysia and Indonesia?
*As far as i know,Thailand own 1 mini aircraft carrier. -
Thailand lah... But only operated 30 days in 365 days
-
sorry ..i mistaken between thai and phil...Originally posted by sbst275:Thailand lah... But only operated 30 days in 365 days -
We can have, we have the most effective AF already
-
Singapore don't even need a destroyer, why should she need a mini aircraft carrier?
-
Amb landings
-
Thailand's aircraft carrier is a white elephant. As we speak, its rusting in the docks as they can't afford to send it out to sea.
Anyway, I feel an aircraft carrier (mini or otherwise) is a waste of money. Yes, today's newspaper it was reported that M'sia is looking to buy a supply ship for their navy which can also serve as a mini aircraft career. But that doesn't mean we need to resort to tit for tat tactics.
Think about it, who is our most likely adversary should war break out? M'sia. And geographically we are so close to them, that it probably makes more sense to launch or fighter jets from airbases rather than from carriers. Yes, airbases are prone to attack, but so are carriers. What's worst, if a carrier gets sunk, not only is the carrier lost but also all the jets & copter aboard it.
This joker I spoke to said that if S'pore gets attacked, the carrier can always sail off & then launch its fighter jets to counter attack. I guess he forgot that carriers aren't exactly know for speed. Also, the enemy's navy & airforce will NOT allow the carrier to sail away & will do their utmost to sink it.
The reason why the US needs aircraft carriers is 'cos they are always sticking their noses in other ppl's affairs. Be it Korea, Taiwan, Iraq or watever. It is obviously ridiculous to launch fighter jets from their airbases in the US, ask them to fly all the way from US to Korea, Taiwan or Iraq, complete their mission & then fly back to the US. So for them, aircraft carriers are the logical choice as they can sail the entire carrier group near these countries & then launch their jets from there.
Now there's no way in hell S'pore is gonna be involved in a war with some far away country like China or India. So what's the justification for an aircraft carrier? What are we gonna do? Sail it right into M'sian waters & launch jets from there? First of all, the M'sian navy & airforce will definitely aim to sink our carrier (together with all its jets).
Secondly, do you have any idea how much time, resources & money is involved each time you launch a carrier? And not to mention the risks taken if we are sending it into M'sian waters. Since M'sia is so geographically close to S'pore, it makes no sense to dispatch a carrier, especially since its faster, cheaper & more practical to launch from our airbases.
Malaysia is not a 10 hour flight from S'pore. If it is, I concur that we need a mini carrier. M'sia is so near to S'pore that barring any AA fire, our jets can probably reach it in under 10 mins after being scrambled.
And if we don't intend to sail the carrier into M'sian waters, then to where? To the Indian ocean?
Into Thailand perhaps? Firstly, we need to obtain clearance to sail a naval vessel into another country's waters. Clearance which may NOT be granted. And even if its granted, tell me, how practical is it to sail our carrier into Thai waters & then launch jets from there, attach M'sia & then return to the carrier?
And keep in mind, carriers need to be resupplied. We ain't talking about a nuclear powered carrier like the USS Nimitz you know. Being the slow moving ship that it is, when the carrier goes back to S'pore to be resupplied & then sails back to its original place, its a sitting duck.
It would be nuts to send out a carrier by itself. Hence the need for carrier groups like those in the US navy. I can't recall the exact composition of the USN's carrier group but I believe there are 1 or 2 submarines, a fast patrol craft & several gunboats or corvettes.
Our navy doesn't have a whole lot of vessels to begin with. If we dispatch several of them to be part of our carrier group, what on earth will be left for us to use to defend S'pore & also to attach M'sian vessels? Don't forget hor, some of our vessels like the LSTs are also needed to support the army.
IMO, its just not practical financially & operationally to operate a carrier or mini carrier. The money would be better spent on newer submarines or replacing our missile corvettes (since our missile gunboats are being replaced by stealth frigates). -
having a aorcraft carrier dont mean we have to follow what the US and other had equipped.Originally posted by Caesar95:Singapore don't even need a destroyer, why should she need a mini aircraft carrier?
maybe our aircraft carrier can equip 2 RSS, 1 sub ..blah blah blah. -
I think the Malaysian man who initial the idea of having a support ship/aircraft carrier is just plain stup... innocent.
1) Getting a Support ship - this is possible as Malaysia seriously need one to support a tri-operation with center of gravity at sea. It is technically and financially possible for malaysia to procue.
2) Claiming that the support ship can be an aircraft carrier is not very wise. Firstly if the support ship is a LPD, it is definately in the eye of amateur not an aircraft carrier. It is apparent that he want to stir up some nationalism within the country by saying that the MAF might be getting an aircraft carrier. * you know the malaysia boleh theory?
Secondly if Malaysia is realli going for an aircraft carrier perhaps the displacement of the French Mistral or spanish Andrea, it is even more naive. How in the world they expect their carrier to carry out it's duty without her airforce achieving air superiority? This certainly beyond mi.
malaysia boleh! -
Anyway wat i said may not be true, Singapore is currently building a fleet-based Navy not a shore-base one liao, a helicopter carrier may be good though
-
The man who talked about the supply ship aka mini carrier was their CDF.
Anyway, helicopter carrier may be good but first we need enough choppers. I believe RSAF hasn't even decided which naval chopper they want for their stealth frigates. And I heard they'd just buy enough so that each frigate has one, with 2 being used for training and/or replacement. -
yes, this is what i mean.Originally posted by Caesar95:Anyway wat i said may not be true, Singapore is currently building a fleet-based Navy not a shore-base one liao, a helicopter carrier may be good though
a mini mini air-craft carrier ..
1 stealth frigates
2 RSS
1 sub
1 patrol craft
equip with 10 anti-sub helicopter, 20 sea helicopter(forget what name). a way for 10 Jet to land.
(my military not really good, any pro can add on) -
Yeap It's confirmed i think m'sia is buying aircraft carrier.
KUALA LUMPUR - The Malaysian Armed Forces wants to buy early-warning aircraft and a multi-role support ship to be used as a floating command centre.
Malaysian Armed Forces chief Mohd Zahidi Zainuddin
Armed forces chief Mohd Zahidi Zainuddin said these military assets were required to safeguard the busy Strait of Malacca, patrol border areas and tackle complex security threats such as terrorism.
'I hope the government will approve the procurement of these assets,' he said in several media interviews to mark the 71st anniversary of the armed forces earlier this week.
The aircraft he wants are equipped with an early-warning defence system and detection capabilities which are faster and more accurate than ground radar. The support ship, besides being a command centre, can also function as an aircraft carrier.
In the interviews, Gen Mohd Zahidi also stressed the importance of transparency and openness in the military.
Referring to criticism that was voiced when he assumed his duties five years ago, he said: 'I know a lot of people were saying 'how can there be transparency and openness when the armed forces chief's post is always reserved for the army?' I think I have proved these people wrong.
'At that time, I think the reason why the post of armed forces chief always fell to an army man was because the army chief was a full general, while the chiefs of the other services were three-star lieutenant-generals.'
He added: 'Since I took over, the government has decided to make the air force and navy chiefs four-star generals. So now, any of the chiefs from the three services can become the armed forces chief.
'This is one of the things I meant when I said there should be transparency and openness. My successor when I eventually retire will be picked by the government based on merit.'
Under his leadership, the armed forces has been modernised with purchases of high-tech submarines, fighter jets, helicopters and battle tanks.
The recent launch of a joint command for the army, navy and air force to carry out joint operations to safeguard national security was another feather in his cap.
The general, whose job contract has been extended to next year, said he would now focus on air and naval defence. -- Utusan Malaysia,New Straits Times
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think its dumb for sg to follow m'sia ways to purchase aircraft carriers.
instead we should get jets which can multirole and equip with stronger variants of harpoon or exocet , but with tactical nuke..
to counter thieir aircraft carrier..should we get F-15 E..think we should use
the Mach 2.5 speed to outrun them...upon approaching target..
fires 2 advanced tactical nuke..at their carrier...gone liao..
muahahahah,furthermore the CDF so high-ranking..wonder if he did his considerations..first..
Furthermore m'sia dun have the assets to guard the aircraft carrier..
the AWACS are also quite useless bah..
The CDF also very funny 1 leh! LOL..
he said he needs aircraft carrier to combat terrorism.
LOL ..LOL...who the heck other then USA needs aircraft carrier to combat terrorism?
Don't tell me TAF (Terrorism air force) is their direct threat..
wanna give indirect excuse , just say lar!
no need gui gui shui shui!
Re: the word "merit"
Ummm..meritocracy ... -
don't need an aircraft carrier. waste of money and we don't need to venture that far out to sea.
Our aircraft from the airbases are capable enough to intercept any bogies. -
agree with the above.Originally posted by esesce:And geographically we are so close to them, that it probably makes more sense to launch or fighter jets from airbases rather than from carriers. Yes, airbases are prone to attack, but so are carriers.
I am not a miltary expert but maybe one way is to use the technique used in aircraft carriers to allow our planes to take off using a shorter runway...that way aircrafts could be scrambled from more places other than the known ones? -
Honestly the only 2 countries in this reigon that need an AC is the Philipines and Indonasia.With they're coast line and many islands it would be easier to have a ship that can carry up to 25 choppers to help patrol and keep away pirates.
-
An AC costs US$4b-$6b to build.
Singapore's entire defense budget for 2004, according to estimations, should be $4b-$5b, based on about 5% of GDP. We're already known to spend the highest defense expenditure per capita for the entire Asia-Pacific region, & now you wanna double it in one shot ...
Maybe your dad can write a check? -
a mini AC dont cost us US$4-6b.Originally posted by Moxie:An AC costs US$4b-$6b to build.
Singapore's entire defense budget for 2004, according to estimations, should be $4b-$5b, based on about 5% of GDP. We're already known to spend the highest defense expenditure per capita for the entire Asia-Pacific region, & now you wanna double it in one shot ...
Maybe your dad can write a check?
dont u know we can claim special military budget..like what we do for buying new fighter.
we already have the equipment and formation..just need the mothership. -
according to hazegray website.... we got the following amphi ships...
LSD:
RSS ENDURANCE
RSS PERSISTANCE
RSS RESOLUTION
RSS ENDEAVOUR
Medium Landing Ship
RSS PERSEVERANCE
LST:
RSS EXCELLENCE
RSS INTREPID
clearly... its not really economical to run 3 types of amphi ships.... the LSTs are really really old and should really rest for good....
perhaps the RSN could consider building 2 additional "stretched version" of the LSD to replace the 3 ships....
maybe the present 4 LSD could have their the landing pads enlarged by stretching it sideway into a square
-
RSS Perseverance had been sold to a private firm. The name RSS Perseverance was given to one of the Frigate.Originally posted by tripwire:according to hazegray website.... we got the following amphi ships...
LSD:
RSS ENDURANCE
RSS PERSISTANCE
RSS RESOLUTION
RSS ENDEAVOUR
Medium Landing Ship
RSS PERSEVERANCE
LST:
RSS EXCELLENCE
RSS INTREPID
:
RSS Excellence and Intrepid is still serving the RSN as a large piece of floating metal capable of being tow off shore to block CNB from terrorist boat attack.
RSN currenly only operate 1 type of LST - Endurance class. -
Actually what is need for both Malaysia and Singapore navy for the next stage, is a true support ship. No it will not be a mini carriers. But a true support ship.
Support ship role is to extent our task Groups - frigates, missile covertte at sea with food, munitions, fuel, spare parts and other supplies. They are like the KC-135 air-refuel tanker role in our airforce, which allow our navy ships to extent their range and operate totally in the sea, which enemy cannot track the location of the ships.
Imagine, even if you have the best navy ships, they are useless without supply. And depending on comming back to refuel reduce their range and effectiveness, and enemy will be expect and laying in ambush.
Singapore does not need any carriers ! Why 1st it is too expensive to operate. Next too much manpower. Also need a fleet to protect it. We rather have better aircraft and air-tanker, which still have the same striking range. -
Our Endurance Class can be that of a true supply ship if it is not functioning totally as an LST.Originally posted by storywolf:Actually what is need for both Malaysia and Singapore navy for the next stage, is a true support ship. No it will not be a mini carriers. But a true support ship.
Support ship role is to extent our task Groups - frigates, missile covertte at sea with food, munitions, fuel, spare parts and other supplies. They are like the KC-135 air-refuel tanker role in our airforce, which allow our navy ships to extent their range and operate totally in the sea, which enemy cannot track the location of the ships.
Imagine, even if you have the best navy ships, they are useless without supply. And depending on comming back to refuel reduce their range and effectiveness, and enemy will be expect and laying in ambush. -
Well it can try to be a supply ship, but it is still not a true supply ship. It will not be able to fullfil the function as good as a delicate one. The volume, and factilities and speed of the supply operation will be still much slower than an actual delicate, build specifically for that role.Originally posted by foxtrout8:Our Endurance Class can be that of a true supply ship if it is not functioning totally as an LST.
If not why last time we started with C-130 as refueling air-tanker, in the end still have to buy delicated kc-135 which is build more for that role. -
If not why last time we started with C-130 as refueling air-tanker, in the end still have to buy delicated kc-135 which is build more for that role.
That is because our KC-130s cant refuel F-16 due to lack of the boom. Hence the purchase of the KC-135s -
How delicate you want it to be? Unless you need a plateform to support a CSG, our Endurance is enough.Originally posted by storywolf:Well it can try to be a supply ship, but it is still not a true supply ship. It will not be able to fullfil the function as good as a delicate one. The volume, and factilities and speed of the supply operation will be still much slower than an actual delicate, build specifically for that role.
The RSS Endurance can:
1) Carry fuel, ammunition, food supply for long range deployment. Look at it's deployment to the Gulf.
2) Medical facilities.
3) Command and control.