Do singapore know how to build it's own aircraft carrier?
-
But, even we want to attack up north, we dun even need a ACC ...Originally posted by wonderamazement:Some guy up north and about singapore acquiring ACCs if it really comes true.... -
ya lah...Originally posted by gd4u:But, even we want to attack up north, we dun even need a ACC ...
carriers r meant for ppl who hv the 'intention' of protectin the whole world...
apparently using force against ppl who r against world peace.... -
"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it" quoted by Elbert Einstein.Originally posted by Marco_Simone:you really need to read up more on military stuff first before posting anything...
Currently Singapore is using F16C and D version. Who knows the later version of F16 can take off from air craft carrier? If Singapore really one day using aircraft carrier maybe it can buy F18 from US which can take off from carrier. -
No F-16 variant or the F-15 will ever be navalised.
-
If that is the case for future, using F18 can solve the problem.Originally posted by LazerLordz:No F-16 variant or the F-15 will ever be navalised.
-
Once saw it in the news on Ch5(on the Strait Times too), the running cost of an American carrier for a year can feed the entire China PLA for a year. including food, shelter & clothings.
Image the US has about 5 carriers or so. Can anyone fill me in on the numbers of carrier they have? -
you can find them hereOriginally posted by evq:Once saw it in the news on Ch5(on the Strait Times too), the running cost of an American carrier for a year can feed the entire China PLA for a year. including food, shelter & clothings.
Image the US has about 5 carriers or so. Can anyone fill me in on the numbers of carrier they have? -
the main thing is nt hoping for current planes to b carrier launch capable in future, neither is it accquiring planes dat r already operational on carriers...Originally posted by grandeur:If that is the case for future, using F18 can solve the problem.
the main thing is....wats the pt of hving one? -
Ya,in your wet dreams...Originally posted by grandeur:"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it" quoted by Elbert Einstein.
Currently Singapore is using F16C and D version. Who knows the later version of F16 can take off from air craft carrier? If Singapore really one day using aircraft carrier maybe it can buy F18 from US which can take off from carrier. -
To protect youOriginally posted by alwaysdisturbed:the main thing is nt hoping for current planes to b carrier launch capable in future, neither is it accquiring planes dat r already operational on carriers...
the main thing is....wats the pt of hving one?
. Actually you should ask what kind of scenario when Singapore need an aircraft carrier. -
“There is no great genius without some touch of madness.” quoted by roman philosopher.Originally posted by Marco_Simone:Ya,in your wet dreams... -
in the real world u dun need every single little thing to protect urself...Originally posted by grandeur:To protect you. Actually you should ask what kind of scenario when Singapore need an aircraft carrier.
nt only u need to noe if u can afford one...u gt to oso noe whether u can operate it properly n fully...
do u noe wats feasibility?
dun juz acquire to b stylo milo... -
its the taxpayers' money u r spendin here...Originally posted by grandeur:“There is no great genius without some touch of madness.” quoted by roman philosopher. -
Do you know how government spend people's reserve fund in the first place?Originally posted by alwaysdisturbed:its the taxpayers' money u r spendin here... -
those aren't physical assets...so in a way, ppl can't c...n whn they can't c...they dun qn much...Originally posted by grandeur:Do you know how government spend people's reserve fund in the first place? -
You have to go ask LKY and LHL why Singapore is not transparent in all these. When there is no transparency do you think there is accountability?Originally posted by alwaysdisturbed:those aren't physical assets...so in a way, ppl can't c...n whn they can't c...they dun qn much... -
The prospects of Singapore having a aircraft carrier (as shown in the pic) is close to nil. Politics, economics and manpower constraints will render it impossible. However in my opinion having a 'light carrier' with multi-role purposes such as humanitarian aid and peace-keeping will have a better chance. It is still not possible for the next 10 years but it will at least be politically and economically realistic to have such a class of ships by then. Manpower wise we just have to hope that the population will increase to a high enough level by that time.
Example of 'light carrier' :
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/lp-x.htm -
The Thales future design, seems much more smaller compared to US ACC. The design seems like a larger version of the British Invisible class ACC ...Originally posted by tankee1981:The prospects of Singapore having a aircraft carrier (as shown in the pic) is close to nil. Politics, economics and manpower constraints will render it impossible. However in my opinion having a 'light carrier' with multi-role purposes such as humanitarian aid and peace-keeping will have a better chance. -
Originally posted by tankee1981:However in my opinion having a 'light carrier' with multi-role purposes such as humanitarian aid and peace-keeping will have a better chance.
Do you consider the aircraft carrier above as light? -
Yes, it is certainly lighter than the previous one but this is not exactly what i meant. I am refering to multi-role missions type of ships such as the recent LP-X class by South Korea.
This class of ships have the potential to operate VSTOL aircraft such as the Harrier jump jets and the yet to be completed F-35B.The LP-X can carry a battalion of marines (about 700 men), 10 armored vehicles, up to 200 vehicles, 15 helicopters, and two LCAC hovercrafts capable of landing on enemy shores doing 40 knots -- a mix that enables it to launch troop landings from both sea and air.For this reason, the LP-X is expected to usher in a new era of expanded Korean naval prowess, since it can be used for relief, transport, and other peacetime activities.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/lp-x.htm -
In fact, the producers are having a problem, that the ship is too heavy to stay afloat in dock ... FOr comparison sake ...
-
Originally posted by gd4u
Bro, i supposed you meant the Invincible class right? But come to think of it Invisible class will be very much more ideal if it is possible to build such ships!
The Thales future design, seems much more smaller compared to US ACC. The design seems like a larger version of the British Invisible class ACC
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/invincible/ -
LP-X
-
You need thousands of personnel to staff the floating airport... so if sinks there goes the RSNOriginally posted by Hellraiza:if we do have one, i think it'll take the whole of the RSN to staff it.
-
I think Singapore having an aircraft carrier is a completely workable idea and one that we should pursue.
Like tankee, when I say carrier I don't mean USS Enterprise, Nitmitz or US seventh fleet etc.
If we sell off our airforce and army we still own't be able to run a carrier task force.
During WW1 and WW2, battleships used to carry a seaplane for recce and also for torpedo attacks. Today, modern frigates continue to have that capability by carrying helicopters. But choppers are easy to kill.
So if you have a frigate just big enough to support a pair of Vertical Take Off / Landing aircrafts like the Harrier, then you've got yourself a frigate that also has a limited capability as an aircraft carrier. A pair of Harriers would be great for defending against air attacks and also to use for recce and air attack against other surface ships or ground targets.