Do Singapore need mini aircraft carrier?
-
why no1 really like the idea of owning a aircraft carrier?
we just need a mother-ship(carrier). we can easily form a mini AC
also dont say it so near..got aircraft-carrier also not use, other ppl one bomb can liao... dont u'll ppl see teebee ? how far the US deploy their Aircraft-carrier in Gulf.. even Singapore sink also havent AC turn. some more, if we have AC.. we must also improve our anti-air radar to prevent suddent attack from missile.
the equipment we owning now..what a waste not to form AC troop(mini 1).
-stealth frigates
-F-16CDs/ New Jet adding
-subMarine
-RSS level
-*anymore ?
let say war against malaysia , AC can park near indonesia.
if war with indonesia, we can park near malaysia.
if war with malaysia & indonesia.. no need to fight. *can consider throw white flag or just seek US help, because fight also not use.. -
Endurance is doing it, but that does not mean that it is totally suitable and enough for how many vessels - think about when we get all 6 frigates. If not why most respectable navy will get a proper supply ship.Originally posted by foxtrout8:How delicate you want it to be? Unless you need a plateform to support a CSG, our Endurance is enough.
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.
There is reason why all navy analysts in the world is predicting singapore next move will soon be getting a supply ship. Think it is very hard to argue with you that Endurance can do it properly or not. Let wait and see, I think within the next 5 years, if Singapore do get a proper supply ship, than I am prove right. -
That what I am talking about, c-130 are not specialized tankers, they are modified to do it but cannot do as good a job or lack some equipment. That is why planes like KC-135 is created, to do the job more effectively and able to refuel more.Originally posted by eurofighter:That is because our KC-130s cant refuel F-16 due to lack of the boom. Hence the purchase of the KC-135s -
With this configuration. Sure die.Originally posted by paperduck:yes, this is what i mean.
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)
Not enough air defense power of incoming homing missile, anti sub, no re-supply ship. Most importance, it does not have enough scrap goat ships to take the impact of incoming strike. -
Because its totally senseless to own one that's why. Firstly, it costs the earth. Secondly, what you said about S'pore sinking doesn't make an ounce of sense. So what if S'pore sinks before the aircraft carrier? Even if the aircraft carrier is still afloat, with S'pore "sunk", there's not much use for the carrier is there?Originally posted by paperduck:why no1 really like the idea of owning a aircraft carrier?
we just need a mother-ship(carrier). we can easily form a mini AC
also dont say it so near..got aircraft-carrier also not use, other ppl one bomb can liao... dont u'll ppl see teebee ? how far the US deploy their Aircraft-carrier in Gulf.. even Singapore sink also havent AC turn. some more, if we have AC.. we must also improve our anti-air radar to prevent suddent attack from missile.
the equipment we owning now..what a waste not to form AC troop(mini 1).
-stealth frigates
-F-16CDs/ New Jet adding
-subMarine
-RSS level
-*anymore ?
let say war against malaysia , AC can park near indonesia.
if war with indonesia, we can park near malaysia.
if war with malaysia & indonesia.. no need to fight. *can consider throw white flag or just seek US help, because fight also not use..
US deploys their carriers in the gulf 'cos its ridiculous to expect US fighter jets to fly from the US all the way to Iraq, carry out their mission then fly back to the US. S'pore on the other hand does not have any enemy or potential enemies that are located so far away from us.
And you obviously have no grasp of politics at all. What makes you think you can suka suka park your carrier in Indonesia if we go to war with M'sia? Don't forget, you need clearance from Indonesia to enter their waters. And in case you didn't know, ASEAN has a policy of non inteference. So there's no way Indonesia will allow our carrier to park in their waters 'cos it would be seen as helping us against M'sia.
And it is most childish thinking that we can simply run to the US for help. If that's the case, why bother having SAF for?
It would be prudent to think in depth first before expressing one's views. -
Lets not make it sour brother, i truely understand what you mean but then if you look at our operation radius, requirement and cost, do we need a delicated support ship while the Endurance is enough for our requirement? Unlike Western navies which have large fleets with huge involvements, they need a support ship. While our 6 Frigate have a range of 7200kms, our Endurance have more and we dun have to operate that far often, do we need a support ship?Originally posted by storywolf:Endurance is doing it, but that does not mean that it is totally suitable and enough for how many vessels - think about when we get all 6 frigates. If not why most respectable navy will get a proper supply ship.
There is reason why all navy analysts in the world is predicting singapore next move will soon be getting a supply ship. Think it is very hard to argue with you that Endurance can do it properly or not. Let wait and see, I think within the next 5 years, if Singapore do get a proper supply ship, than I am prove right.
In the Gulf, our Endurance is the support ship for the Coalition vessels. It of cause not as delicate as a support ship, but it provided medical support, fueling point, functioned with some commanding roles, central sentry post and there is even an ammo dump within it.
But anyway, what i see is not important but what RSN see is important, you might be right! -
Paperduck, you see only the aircraft carrier, but did you see the whole defensive fleet around a aircraft carrier ? Each aircraft carrier need a whole battle group to protect it to be safe from enemy ships, airp planes and submarines. Take the US battle group - a typical group will have 2 missile cruisers, 2 destoryers, one frigate,2 submarine, 1 supply ships and others like mine sweepers.Originally posted by paperduck:why no1 really like the idea of owning a aircraft carrier?
we just need a mother-ship(carrier). we can easily form a mini AC
also dont say it so near..got aircraft-carrier also not use, other ppl one bomb can liao... dont u'll ppl see teebee ? how far the US deploy their Aircraft-carrier in Gulf.. even Singapore sink also havent AC turn. some more, if we have AC.. we must also improve our anti-air radar to prevent suddent attack from missile.
the equipment we owning now..what a waste not to form AC troop(mini 1).
-stealth frigates
-F-16CDs/ New Jet adding
-subMarine
-RSS level
-*anymore ?
let say war against malaysia , AC can park near indonesia.
if war with indonesia, we can park near malaysia.
if war with malaysia & indonesia.. no need to fight. *can consider throw white flag or just seek US help, because fight also not use..
Even if the carrier itself need 1000+ man to operate, and billions to build, and millions to operate daily. Would it not be better to build use those money to build a few advance cruisers, which can fire cruise missiles instead ? or to buy advance planes and rent foreign airfield ? -
Using Aircraft Carrier to fight against piracy??? You must be kidding..... It is hiring a Chinook because you are shifting house!!! Gross overkill!Originally posted by |-|05|: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.
Please name me one country that uses aircraft carriers to fight piracy! -
Yeah..really un-economical to have a AC be it mini or not.
Perhaps we could better spend $$ into R&D for new systems or weapons.
Create some Mobile suits or APUs.. -
a mini AC dont cost us US$4-6b.
Like I said, show me the money.
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.
I didn't even mention the millions of dollars constantly needed to buy fuel, as well as provide maintainence, for the AC.
SE Asia doesn't need it; even Australia hasn't commissioned another since its last one delisted in the '80s. The reality is no regional country has extended overseas interests to finance a AC; the various countries' existing airbases & naval bases are operationally appropriate enough, augmented by the ASEAN & FDPA arrangements.
Like other posters on this board, I can foresee strengthening/upgrading of the purer maritime forces (both individually & collectively) though. But, in Singapore's case, my feeling is we'll choose to bolster the naval bases more instead, if only to faciliate better the American & Commonwealth taskforces that occasionally visit our shores (& indirectly act as a deterrent).
That's basically been our historical load to carry, even as we sought to protect ourselves militarily post-independence. The whole pre-WWII "Singapore Strategy" - i.e. the building & upkeep of the British Naval Base at Sembawang - was that it's ill-affording to station a permanent fleet within the region to protect colonial interests, but a local facility can be established from which operations can be launched.
The new Changi Naval Base - cost between $33m-$35m - should thus be viewed from this perspective, vis-a-vis the regular FDPA exercises that partly launched from the facility. -
i'm just wondering..wads an RSS?Originally posted by paperduck:yes, this is what i mean.
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) -
You mean the RSS prefix itself?
It stands for Republic of Singapore Ship. -
GET The imperial star wars destroyer!
den launch out planes from then on! -
yeah i know this..but in this context..wad does 2 RSS mean? he wants to store 2 ships in his carrier?Originally posted by Moxie:You mean the RSS prefix itself?
It stands for Republic of Singapore Ship.
-
no. get a super flying doughnut that goes around eating peopleOriginally posted by SibeiSuayKia:GET The imperial star wars destroyer!
den launch out planes from then on! -
hah...mini mini aircraft carrier..why not launch a fighter jet from a Globe Master jet?
-
sorry let me rephrase....and LPDOriginally posted by spencer99:Using Aircraft Carrier to fight against piracy??? You must be kidding..... It is hiring a Chinook because you are shifting house!!! Gross overkill!
Please name me one country that uses aircraft carriers to fight piracy!
-
Fantasy scenario: RMN have aircraft carrier. RSN also have aircraft carrier.
The RMN Naval Air Arm of launched a surprise crippling strike on CNB. They did so before they declare war. Almost all our Frigates and MCV are destroyed. Luckily our sole carrier RSS Singapura is at sea at the time of the attack. Our SSKs also escaped damage.
With the RSN fleet destroyed, the RMN have almost total control of the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca.
But the the SSKs did a lot of damage to Malaysia's merchant shipping. And the RMN believed that the radar on Pedra Branca is guiding the SSK.
The RMN decided to strike the tiny island of Pedra Branca and assembled a fleet to do so, including their Naval Air Striking force. Luckily the RSN broke the RMN naval code and positioned the RSS Singapura and its escort group to be in a correct position.
After the RMN Harriers launched its strike on Pedra Branca and were refueling on the carrier, the RSS Singapura launched a strike with its VSTOL F-35s. Without air cover, the RMN carrier is dommed.......
The lookout on the Carrier shouted.... "HELLDIVERS" opps... sorry.. "HARPOON" and then the entire carrier is engulfed in flames. With the Airborne Striking Arm of the RMN destroyed, the war at sea was turned.....
Question : Who can tell me what this story is based on? -
simple...in ww2, japanese vs USN at the battle of midway, USA won and stop the japanese advance which in hte end won the whole war in the pacific
-
simple...in ww2, japanese vs USN at the battle of midway, USA won and stop the japanese advance which in the end won the whole war in the pacific
-
1 whole crap of bullshlt containing stories from pearl harbor,vn war,Originally posted by spencer99:Fantasy scenario: RMN have aircraft carrier. RSN also have aircraft carrier.
The RMN Naval Air Arm of launched a surprise crippling strike on CNB. They did so before they declare war. Almost all our Frigates and MCV are destroyed. Luckily our sole carrier RSS Singapura is at sea at the time of the attack. Our SSKs also escaped damage.
With the RSN fleet destroyed, the RMN have almost total control of the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca.
But the the SSKs did a lot of damage to Malaysia's merchant shipping. And the RMN believed that the radar on Pedra Branca is guiding the SSK.
The RMN decided to strike the tiny island of Pedra Branca and assembled a fleet to do so, including their Naval Air Striking force. Luckily the RSN broke the RMN naval code and positioned the RSS Singapura and its escort group to be in a correct position.
After the RMN Harriers launched its strike on Pedra Branca and were refueling on the carrier, the RSS Singapura launched a strike with its VSTOL F-35s. Without air cover, the RMN carrier is dommed.......
The lookout on the Carrier shouted.... "HELLDIVERS" opps... sorry.. "HARPOON" and then the entire carrier is engulfed in flames. With the Airborne Striking Arm of the RMN destroyed, the war at sea was turned.....
Question : Who can tell me what this story is based on?
blitkrieg, korean war..
since when did USN has F-35...VSTOL..not even now..
Even if the ship RSS SINGAPURA is away at sea..at most about 1000 to 2000km, won't really give them a problem if they really wanna pursue it.
the only thing it should have is a ability to launch aircraft to defend itself.
since it's mini..assuming there is 2 F-35 and 4 migs approaching...all the 4 migs might hit full speed at mach 2 upon approach to over-run the jets and charge towards the ship fire all the ships at it..
It's stupid to keep the best warships in CNB....
hint :*you won't get to see the full strength of ships even if u fly helicopter around CNB, pulau brani ..or aniwhere..*
What the ship can do, the planes oso can do..in a limited amount of range, the only thing a plane would have a little difficulty doing is submarine hunting esp when the new scorpene submarines are quite stealthy
i do admit ships are vulnearable , imagine if u launch the strike on a NB..
we can also do the same...if not double.. -
Anyone with a bit of knowledge of military history will know this lah.....Originally posted by ray243:simple...in ww2, japanese vs USN at the battle of midway, USA won and stop the japanese advance which in hte end won the whole war in the pacific
The above would of course never happen
-
Improbable, unrealistic scenario. RMN and RSN operating carriers? Ha!!! And why would the Malaysians' take the trouble to destroy our Navy when our airforce is a much greater threat?Originally posted by spencer99:Fantasy scenario: RMN have aircraft carrier. RSN also have aircraft carrier.
The RMN Naval Air Arm of launched a surprise crippling strike on CNB. They did so before they declare war. Almost all our Frigates and MCV are destroyed. Luckily our sole carrier RSS Singapura is at sea at the time of the attack. Our SSKs also escaped damage.
With the RSN fleet destroyed, the RMN have almost total control of the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca.
If RMN has "almost total control" over South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca, then we can assume that our air force is wiped out.
Why the hell would anyone assemble a fleet to flatten Pedra Blanca? A single air strike can do that with less hassle and more effective.Originally posted by spencer99:But the the SSKs did a lot of damage to Malaysia's merchant shipping. And the RMN believed that the radar on Pedra Branca is guiding the SSK.
The RMN decided to strike the tiny island of Pedra Branca and assembled a fleet to do so, including their Naval Air Striking force. Luckily the RSN broke the RMN naval code and positioned the RSS Singapura and its escort group to be in a correct position.
Without air cover? The region is so small that RMAF's planes could easily provide protection for their carrier!Originally posted by spencer99:After the RMN Harriers launched its strike on Pedra Branca and were refueling on the carrier, the RSS Singapura launched a strike with its VSTOL F-35s. Without air cover, the RMN carrier is dommed.......
The lookout on the Carrier shouted.... "HELLDIVERS" opps... sorry.. "HARPOON" and then the entire carrier is engulfed in flames. With the Airborne Striking Arm of the RMN destroyed, the war at sea was turned.....
Question : Who can tell me what this story is based on? -
Let's talk sense rather than ridiculous scenarios.
-
Just want to point out:
1) F-16 C/Ds (or any of the F-16 versions) are NOT capable of carrier based take off. Aircraft taking off from carriers have to be capable of taking off within a very short stretch of pavement when compared to an air base's run way. Not all military aircraft can do this.
2) Of the three shortlisted aircraft for the Next Generation Fighter Programme, only one, the French-made Dassault Rafale is capable of carrier based flight... and as far as I know, MINDEF is not looking at the carrier version of the Rafale.
3) Not ALL Joint Strike Fighters will be able to take off from carriers. Only the Navy and Marine versions will be capable of such flight. These versions will definitely cost more than the simpler Air Force version.
Hence: To get a carrier, we will end up spending LOTS more since we'll have to start building a Naval Air Wing from SCRATCH.