Do Singapore need mini aircraft carrier?
-
This story is good, if ever both side crazy enough to get carriers, one thing is for sure ! everyone will be too poor to even want to attack each other. No money for fuel to even fly the damn planes !!!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? -
Thanks for appreciating the story as it is .... a fantasy story....Originally posted by storywolf:This story is good, if ever both side crazy enough to get carriers, one thing is for sure ! everyone will be too poor to even want to attack each other. No money for fuel to even fly the damn planes !!!
Yeah lah... the strategic importance of Midway is it is in the geographical center of a wide expense of the Pacific. Whoever control Midway will have a control over a wide expense of the Pacific if they have sufficient naval and air power to police it.
In Singapore's case, our expected operating environment is constricted geograhically and is hampered by the huge number of neutral merchant shipping. Any conflict that take place may also involve other interested parties like the PLAN, USN, RAN and the Indonesian Navy. -
Spencer99 when you talk about the story, you actually have fault in it. Why because that story did not take into account of the technology and changes since world war 2.Originally posted by spencer99:Thanks for appreciating the story as it is .... a fantasy story....
Yeah lah... the strategic importance of Midway is it is in the geographical center of a wide expense of the Pacific. Whoever control Midway will have a control over a wide expense of the Pacific if they have sufficient naval and air power to police it.
In Singapore's case, our expected operating environment is constricted geograhically and is hampered by the huge number of neutral merchant shipping. Any conflict that take place may also involve other interested parties like the PLAN, USN, RAN and the Indonesian Navy.
There been huge growth in technology like airplanes ranges, drop tanks, air-refueling which totally redefine the range of operations of aircrafts. The range of dive bomber in world war II - 1,820 km. And those days you need a whole fleet of ships or a whole fleet of planes to take out ships or aircraft carrier.
Now ? Present day ? you just need a plane or a ship that carry just one harpoon missile ( itself 90km range ). F-16 range now is 3,900 km, Fokker F-50 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) estimated to be 1,800 nm, will drop tank that will even enhance range. With radars and sateillites this even make the pin point of carrier groups like never before.
Do we really need a aircraft carrier to take out another aircraft carrier ? or bomb a place ? Think technology have reduce that need a lot . -
Whoever control Midway will have a control over a wide expense of the Pacific if they have sufficient naval and air power to police it.
Sorry, wrong example. Midway was part of the Americans' Pacific atroll/island interests that ended up as a vital wartime operational base for them, but they didn't stake (or garrisoned) it that significantly prior.
From the Imperial Japanese standpoint, the biggest Allied naval-base threat to their territorial ambitions was two-fold: Pearl Harbour (USA) & Singapore (GB). Hence their quick strategic strikes in late-'41/early-'42. Midway became important cuz it happened to be geographucally the next further American Far West staging post to stem the Japanese tide.
Sidetracking: One of the most enlightening discussions I've attended, one that happened to involve JC students, occcurred at the Fall of Singapore Anniversary conference a couple of years back. It was based on a side comment from one of the speakers, a NUS lecturer, who briefly highlighted on a great "what if" missed opportunity. The premise was this: the post WWI peace-treaties accentuated the mistrust between the Western colonial powers & militarist Japan, & the British adopted the "Singapore Strategy" - i.e. building of Sembawang Naval Base - to facilitate the deployment of a naval taskforce to out East.
The missed opportunity was what if British & Holland had put aside their colonial rivalry & enter into a marriage of military convenience against a common enemy (Japan)? What if, instead of Singapore, a concentrated naval base had been cooperatively built in, say, Bintan? Perhaps subsequent regional geopolitical developments would've created a different set of national soverignities, but Bintan could've still stood out ... as the South-east Asian version of Pearl Harbour before the Americans fortified their Pearl Harbour!
The JC students also informally took up that point further - I was more of a silent listener - & suggested that if ASEAN ever unites enough into a Confederation (CONFSEAN, anyone?) or single Republic (Republic of South-east Asia?), that would be the kind of naval strategy the new entity would adopt, which in turn would make Australia a "strategic competitor" - to use George W. Bush's once-description of China.
Fascinating scenario, but IMO more plausible than the idea of regional armed forces buying aircraft carriers when most of them are still oriented towards counterinsurgency (rather than for conventional warfare). -
Sorry to push this thread up again. Just saw a documentary a coupl of days back about modern US carriers. It cost billions just to build one (missed out the exact figures but distinctly heard "billions"). It takes USD440,000,000 a year to operate it.
This costs only reflects that of the carrier, and does not include the fleet needed to support the carrier. -
USA got 350 biLLION of USD budget..
we only got 70 times lesser... -
I'm glad you realise that. And you still want to propose your stupid carrier??Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:USA got 350 biLLION of USD budget..
we only got 70 times lesser...
-
not unless we got a bigger country or land the size of malaysia or indinesia, IF we do...then a carrier is possible.
-
nobody's talking about a full sized nuclear powered carrier...
i think even if we get one, will probably be like the one thailand bought... a pocket carrier...
its still fuggin' expensive to deploy though... -
Aircraft carriers are for force projection... deploying planes and troops outside the sphere of your land bases... Unless we are deploying troops around the world like USA, UK or France, there is no need for one... unless we want to convert a old one into a floating casino where tycoons can land their planes on the deck...
-
now that will go with our government's new policy...Originally posted by Cpl Ho:Aircraft carriers are for force projection... deploying planes and troops outside the sphere of your land bases... Unless we are deploying troops around the world like USA, UK or France, there is no need for one... unless we want to convert a old one into a floating casino where tycoons can land their planes on the deck... 
-
dats a damn cool idea...but its goin to b costly...veryOriginally posted by Cpl Ho:Aircraft carriers are for force projection... deploying planes and troops outside the sphere of your land bases... Unless we are deploying troops around the world like USA, UK or France, there is no need for one... unless we want to convert a old one into a floating casino where tycoons can land their planes on the deck... -
Wasn't that the Chinese idea for the Admiral Kuznetsow (or was it Adm Gorkov)?Originally posted by Cpl Ho:Aircraft carriers are for force projection... deploying planes and troops outside the sphere of your land bases... Unless we are deploying troops around the world like USA, UK or France, there is no need for one... unless we want to convert a old one into a floating casino where tycoons can land their planes on the deck...
To get a force projection capability is an outright declaration of hostility given our limited sphere of influence and adding oil to the already simmering embers of this region. -
Sorry, my military history quite limited... an aircraft carrier seems a non-issue to me, and I totally agree with your point...Originally posted by Obersturmfuhrer:Wasn't that the Chinese idea for the Admiral Kuznetsow (or was it Adm Gorkov)?
To get a force projection capability is an outright declaration of hostility given our limited sphere of influence and adding oil to the already simmering embers of this region.
-
Dun need aircraft carriers, also it would be wise not to incur the wrath of our neighbours.
-
oh man.....
although i'm still in the army and not liable to pay taxes yet... i can't imagine paying even more money to the government in the future for a carrier..... maybe they'll raise GST and cigarettes prices again... good thing i dun smoke
haiz....1 more year to ord in dec.....stilll long....
but it might be fun though... can already see RSN being more involved with UN peace keeping missions and helping other countries (like iraq or blangadash even!) with our carrier (if we are getting one la)
plus can travel around the world visit other countries showing off our ships juz like what our LST's are doing
ps: sorry for the bad spelling.... -
Originally posted by Devilsmarlin:
lol aircraft carrier is far beyond impossible....
oh man.....
although i'm still in the army and not liable to pay taxes yet... i can't imagine paying even [b]more money to the government in the future for a carrier..... maybe they'll raise GST and cigarettes prices again... good thing i dun smoke
haiz....1 more year to ord in dec.....stilll long....
but it might be fun though... can already see RSN being more involved with UN peace keeping missions and helping other countries (like iraq or blangadash even!) with our carrier (if we are getting one la)
plus can travel around the world visit other countries showing off our ships juz like what our LST's are doing
ps: sorry for the bad spelling....[/b]
lol...................
Aircrafts and Ship alone can't do the job... -
Er!! I think we share most of our national interest with US and other western nations. Since we have some much in common, any chaotic situations which requires deployment of relatively large amount of combatant destinated an area far off the region beyond S.E.A need not be us.The Country which presumably mightly will most probably initial an involvement.
Thats why she have the largest fleet of Carriers around.
Realistically we are a tiny nation, located in the centre of S.E.A with aircrafts and defense technology capable enough to govern our nation. Beside having met the fundemental criteria for possessing weaponary, our current forces based mainland have the range for external power projection with a wide circumference covering most of our region thats our priority. Why do we need Carrier to project!
.
Wanna send aircraft use KC-135R la
if you guys are fond of singapore possessing one an idea go provoke a nation which have an ocean barrier in between dont need US just india will do -
Seems 2004 is a year of natural disasters - if it's not tsunamis, it's typhoons, earthquakes, flooding etc.
Case for a flat top for RSN and many more helicopters?
Maybe a replenishment vessel? -
Fariyland our LST already act as a flatop for our helicopters ! Which we already deployed, we will get a total of 4 of these LST each can easily take up to 2 helicopters , with a few fast craft onboard . Think it is more practical to build more or bigger LST if needed.Originally posted by Fairyland:Seems 2004 is a year of natural disasters - if it's not tsunamis, it's typhoons, earthquakes, flooding etc.
Case for a flat top for RSN and many more helicopters?
Maybe a replenishment vessel?
However the ideal of aircraft carrier and helicopter carrier, which the cost of building and cost maintain it and staff it is way so high that, we need no natural disaster, and Singapore will already be in total finance disaster and in need of help ourselves for making stupid spending like that. -
Very happy to see that there are some people with their feet firmly fixed on the ground!
Singapore still got hope.....
-
Aircraft carrire need 3-5 thousand ppl to operate and depend on what type of carrier they buy. As for Singapore NAVY the total strenght is less than 5 thousand people. Singapore have $$$ to buy but no manpower to operate.
3G SAF
Now our SAF is a 3G SAF and they are cutting down on manpower.
For officer they have to ORD and the age of 45 no matter what rank they are.
For WOSE they can serve until age of 55 but most of the specialist who have serve almost 10yrs will be giving a letter "Thank you for your 10yrs of good service" and they have to leave the SAF. -
RSN is right, a aircraft carrier need ard 3 to 5k of ppl to operate n to operate a carrier, u will to pump lots n lots of fuel to make the engines work or by using nuclear energy.. but singapore dun have the capital to support either ways..
so most likely RSN wont be buying any carrier in the next 20, 50 or 100 years?
right now we just need more surface ships n submarine in the navy to make our fleet a bigger 1...
more MCVs
more frigates
more submarines and maybe a few destroyers -
i'll be the first ATC working at the aircraft carrier!!
-
We do not need one at this point, may it be a regular or mini white elephant . Just dun see the operation needs.