Singapore Marines
-
Erm.. what definition of Marines are we referring to? Do note that the US's idea of a Marine Corps has undertaken quite a fair bit of transformation. In some ways they are the "Guards" (in our sense) of the US armed forces, but they do retain their abilities to assault beaches. They are largely an offensive unit, and don't really take and hold territory, unlike the US Army.
If we refer to the Royal Marines, then yes, the NDU is a somewhat similar unit, but the Royal Marines are more extensively equipped than the NDU and actually do heavy assault with vehicles. They are Naval Infantry. Whereas the NDU is largely a commando force. The Russians do have naval Spetnaz. They even operate T-55s I believe.
I do not think we can advance that sort of level, as one might note that they often have a support of a helicopter carrier, like the HMS Ocean. -
Oh, here it is. Called the Zubr. Has no equal in the world. At least twice the size of the largest US hovercraft.
huge mother...
57 meters long and 20 meters wide. 130km/hr on water.
Can carry 500 troopers or 10 armoured vehicles. Or more commonly, a mix of men and tanks.
China ordered SIX last year!!!
Its on-board armament is also impressive including a six-barrel chain gun known as the "metal-cutter";.
there is a model that carry moskit too... -
It's a huge sea-going tank!Originally posted by tankfanatic:huge mother...
there is a model that carry moskit too...
-
The Russian Naval Infantry is a pretty well developed unit, with tanks and all to do amphibious assault.Originally posted by tankfanatic:huge mother...
there is a model that carry moskit too...
Apparently, they also have 122mm SPA too. -
120km/h....you will have to siam this monster man!
-
Really makes you wonder where on earth they're heading to. Historically, I can't remember any place that the USSR/Russia has invaded that their armed forces couldn't reach by land. Just look at it. When was the last time you saw the Russians do a D-day style invasion?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:The Russian Naval Infantry is a pretty well developed unit, with tanks and all to do amphibious assault.
Apparently, they also have 122mm SPA too. -
they need to neutralise Iceland to destroy the sosus network..so that their boomer and hunter killer can have easy access (hypothecaly) to the North Atlantic ocean.. and hunt allied navy and merchant.
-
i significant forces needed to invade and secure the island. So an amphibious landing is needed to secure the Reykjavic air base and international airport. They can use the air base to launch backfire from Naval aviation to kill american CVBG.
-
Royal Marines not equivalent to our NDUOriginally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:If we refer to the Royal Marines, then yes, the NDU is a somewhat similar unit, but the Royal Marines are more extensively equipped than the NDU and actually do heavy assault with vehicles.
The Royal Marines are basically "elite infantry" like the US Army Rangers or the various airborne units of other countries.
The NDU however is a SOF.The Special Boat Service of the Royal Marines is a better comparison,but not the Royal Marines themselves. -
Delete
-
However, the argument that the term is offensive is not very valid. Our neighbours have been using that term for years.Originally posted by tankee1981:Although we do not have dedicated official marines in SAF, we already have similar elements within the current ORBAT.
The 'rumoured' ADF is an all regular battalion which have rapid deployment capabilities such as using LST. Our current Guards outfit have a mixture of heliborne and amphibious assault capabilities (eg Super Pumas with LSV and AMX-10). Not to mention the NDU from the navy which sends soldiers for SEAL training in the US regularly.
As someone have mentioned earlier, the term Marines is offensive in nature and thus not used due to political reasons. But if you ask me,we already have 'marines' within SAF. Should one day Singapore government have the political will to assert Singapore as a regional military power then they can easily reshuffle the various units currently within SAF to form a new Marine formation.
But I do agree that to form a Marine Corps is not that steep a slope to climb. -
Well, if you would like to know, the Russians were planning to invade Japan during WWII, but were stopped by the surrender.Originally posted by fallin:Really makes you wonder where on earth they're heading to. Historically, I can't remember any place that the USSR/Russia has invaded that their armed forces couldn't reach by land. Just look at it. When was the last time you saw the Russians do a D-day style invasion? -
I didn't say equivalent, I said "somewhat similar".Originally posted by Marco_Simone:Royal Marines not equivalent to our NDU
The Royal Marines are basically "elite infantry" like the US Army Rangers or the various airborne units of other countries.
The NDU however is a SOF.The Special Boat Service of the Royal Marines is a better comparison,but not the Royal Marines themselves. -
its not even somewhat similar...Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:I didn't say equivalent, I said "somewhat similar". -
Singaporeans already not breeding enough already, where are we gonna find the extra manpower to man and support 2 new Marine Bns?
Might as well just cross train 2 of the SIR Bn's with amphibious capabilities... -
Actually, what I foresee in the future is that a rapid response task force with marine capabilities being formed. It is abt the side of a strengthen brigade and has its own elements of fire support eg, artillery guns mounted on vehicles, some amphibious armoured elements.
To think that SAF might want to invest on another formation is not likely. Firstly due to the reduction of birth rates and if u observe the trends, now infantry do what Guards do more or less. SAF emphasis on multi role rather than specialise........
But the idea of a Marine force is not impossible. Firstly some of the GDS folks already specialise in amphibious operations and have trained extensively on this trade for 2 yrs of their service. Furthermore, we already have most of the systems already in place, eg. LST, FCU. Some may say GDS are mainly air mobile in nature and not amphibious. Yes, to a certain extent, but one must be aware that USMC also place heavy emphasis on heli-ops. Times have changed, I doubt any general will want his troops to storm the beaches like Iwo Jima, thus I believe USMC also have moved away from this type of operations and emphasize on heli ops and small scale coastal insertion.
What differentiates us from our neighbours is that we have a vision and we work towards it, while they only emphasize on countering what others have bought. I believe those AMX-10, ACV-1 did not come by accident, but rather like the Challenger subs, to help us familiarize and increase our expertise on this field on naval insertion. If u notice we got only 4 LST while 6 vessels make up a squadron in RSN. Thus I believe in the future, we may accquire large resupply vessels or even LPH like the Korean Dokdo LPD.
As for the fact we have a large supply of M113 available, we can turn them into amphibious like what the Italian have done. These armoured carriers can increase the speed for our troops to secure vital positions on the beach heads. -
err i dun think the Ultras have the capabilities to swim oceans or seasOriginally posted by equlus84:As for the fact we have a large supply of M113 available, we can turn them into amphibious like what the Italian have done. These armoured carriers can increase the speed for our troops to secure vital positions on the beach heads.
only capable for small rivers like straits of singapore between north n south
however shldnt be anything further than tat if needed hor -
y not "resurrect" the 2nd Guards Battalion ?
-
I agree with what equlus84 said. SAF probably will want a multi-role air/land/sea capable Rapid Response Force consisting of regulars, which they may form taking elements from existing units (commandos, Guards, NDU etc) don't know what they'll call it. We probably don't need marines for war against our neighbour in the north, but if we have to fight against other countries, marines would be useful, since you have to cross a sea.
Another question, if they form the marines, is how far are they going to go with it. If we are going the indonesian way, then you don't need much in terms of vehicles and ships (we already have them). But to go big-time seriously (such as middle powers like the Spaniards and Italians with naval task forces), you need:
1. Dedicated vehicles such as AAV (Amphibious Assault Vehicle) and hovercraft - Bionix/Ultras won't do, need something capable of going from ship to shore in all sea states, day/night and speedily.
2. Ships - at least 2 LPDs much larger than Endurance class (> 15,000 tons). Marines typically have multiple means of insertion - via sea or air. So, the LPDs should be able to handle several Super Pumas or even Chinooks at one time to launch a substantial force (not one at a time like our LSTs). Also, since our 4 LSTs are not always availble (transporting for the army in overseas deployments), we need dedicated LPDs solely for Marines so they can be deployed anytime.
3. Destroyers/frigates and subs to escort these LPDs (perform anti-submarine, anti-air, anti-ship roles). Currently if deploying in bluewater, only our stealth Frigates and subs can fill this role.
4. Resupply ships. In US Marines task forces, you have replenishment ships to carry anything from fuel to ammo and food. A foreign analyst of RSN says RSN won't acquire resupply vessels due to the implied nature of their role - too offensive, for force-projection only.
A more realistic goal may be to follow the Australians. They are acquiring 2 Mistral Class LPDs (from DCN): 21,300tons "amphibious assault, command and power projection ships" by 2012.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mistral/ -
A large fleet U will need air support. What would be the logistics support needed to maintain such a deployment.Originally posted by OldBird69:I agree with what equlus84 said. SAF probably will want a multi-role air/land/sea capable Rapid Response Force consisting of regulars (not reservists), which they may form taking elements of various existing units (commandos, Guards, NDU etc) don't know what they'll call it. We probably don't need marines for war against our neighbour in the north, but if we have to fight against other countries, marines would be useful, since you have to cross a sea.
Another question, if they form the marines, is how far are they going to go with it. If we are going the indonesian way, then you don't need much in terms of vehicles and ships (we already have them). But to go big-time seriously (such as middle powers like the Spaniards and Italians with naval task forces), you need:
1. Dedicated vehicles such as AAV (Amphibious Assault Vehicle) and hovercraft - Bionix/Ultras won't do, need something capable of going from ship to shore in rough sea states speedily.
2. Ships - at least 2 LPDs much larger than Endurance class (> 15,000 tons). Marines typically have multiple means of insertion - via sea or air. So, the LPDs should be able to handle several Super Pumas or even Chinooks at one time, to launch a substantial force (not one at a time like from our LSTs). Also, since our 4 LSTs are already transporting for the army (overseas deployments) part of the time, we need dedicated LPDs to carry/deploy Marines full-time.
3. Destroyer/frigate-type warships and subs to escort these LPDs (to perform anti-submarine, anti-air, anti-ship roles). Currently if deploying in bluewater, only our stealth Frigates and subs can possibly fill this role.
4. Resupply ships. I'm thinking big on this one, but in the US marine task forces, you have replenishment ships to carry anything from fuel to ammo and food. i read a foreign analysis of RSN - they say RSN won't acquire resupply vessels due to the implied nature of their role - too offensive, force-projection type.
A more realistic goal may be to pattern it after the Australians. They are acquiring 2 Mistral Class LPDs (from DCN): 21,300tons "amphibious assault, command and power projection ships" by 2012.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mistral/
From what i see, SG will send out SAF within ASEAN states if trouble arises. These will include islands around Indo, and possible Phili, Thai to the North. Beyond this region i am not sure how much would SG will commit. -
Very true. SAF won't send out large forces betond ASEAN. It would be hard to justify a fleet the size of Australia's future navy with 2 LPDs. And then add Harriers + maybe AWACS for fleet air defence.Originally posted by Arapahoe:A large fleet U will need air support. What would be the logistics support needed to maintain such a deployment.
From what i see, SG will send out SAF within ASEAN states if trouble arises. These will include islands around Indo, and possible Phili, Thai to the North. Beyond this region i am not sure how much would SG will commit.
Another thing is unless your country is like the US with global commitments/aspirations/hegemony (whatever you call it), chances are the LPD is only used once a year for exercises. Real war (touch wood) or natural disasters are just too rare here to justify their purchase. -
A more realistic goal may be to follow the Australians. They are acquiring 2 Mistral Class LPDs (from DCN): 21,300tons "amphibious assault, command and power projection ships" by 2012.
This is a link to the favorite (Tenix/Navantia) for the RAN's LHD :
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mistral/
[/url]
http://www.lhd.tenix.com/index.asp?id=Performance
The winner will be announced in the next month or so, along with the contract for the Destroyers:
http://www.ausawd.com/ -
maybe if we are really serious abt lpd/lhd in the future and the costs including maintenance,upgrading,weaponizing,operating costs etc are cheaper than getting a new ship imho we could get the flagship of the thai navy off their hands as its a sorta 'berth' queen rite? maybe we could diplomatically win a strategic coup after purchasing the Chakri Nauebet in the sense that permanent all year ard lease of their airbase for training and etc rather than the agreement now which states we are entitled to use the airbase for some period of days in a year.This would really test our negotiation skills so that we can get good price and good defence agreement.Advantages would be if we managed to lease the airbase year round, we could station a squadron of vipers and a squadron of eagles under the pretense of training but they would be our backup or alternative point of attack if our mainland airbases are compromised etc. Another advantage of getting the Chakri Nareubet would be having another point of attack as we could station the naval versions of the f35 be it STOL or VTOL maybe at least a squadron? and maybe we could configure it to hold a sizable contingent of our own versions of marines and their heavy equipment. Im very confident in our SAF's and ST's capability to 'zhnng' the Chakri Nareubet. Just that the costs must be affordable and realistic thats all. With the right plan of maintenance and upgrading these sort of ships can last decades.We also have a tendency of purchasing 2nd hand items and modifying it well,learning our tradecraft well and making it last operationally like our mbt's, subs, sm1 etc.With the lessons learn from operating the Chakri Naruebet we could operate better new lpd/lhd in more decades to come should we decide to indigenously build our own or purchase off the shelf ones.I can already envision changing the name of the Chakri Naruebet to RSS Singapura as singapore is an island nation and the RSS Singapura is also a floating island in the middle of the sea.The ideas are views above are all from an amateur.Please dont be shy in dissecting my ideas as the purpose of this forum is to inform the uninformed and to share and debate ideas.Cheers and have a good day.
-
Chakri Narubet?
That rusting hulk is of no use to us, IMHO. Better get one of those from Navantia. -
1. No country will want to sell its flagship (loseface)Originally posted by Darkbaron:maybe if we are really serious abt lpd/lhd in the future and the costs including maintenance,upgrading,weaponizing,operating costs etc are cheaper than getting a new ship imho we could get the flagship of the thai navy off their hands as its a sorta 'berth' queen rite? maybe we could diplomatically win a strategic coup after purchasing the Chakri Nauebet in the sense that permanent all year ard lease of their airbase for training and etc rather than the agreement now which states we are entitled to use the airbase for some period of days in a year.This would really test our negotiation skills so that we can get good price and good defence agreement.Advantages would be if we managed to lease the airbase year round, we could station a squadron of vipers and a squadron of eagles under the pretense of training but they would be our backup or alternative point of attack if our mainland airbases are compromised etc. Another advantage of getting the Chakri Nareubet would be having another point of attack as we could station the naval versions of the f35 be it STOL or VTOL maybe at least a squadron? and maybe we could configure it to hold a sizable contingent of our own versions of marines and their heavy equipment. Im very confident in our SAF's and ST's capability to 'zhnng' the Chakri Nareubet. Just that the costs must be affordable and realistic thats all. With the right plan of maintenance and upgrading these sort of ships can last decades.We also have a tendency of purchasing 2nd hand items and modifying it well,learning our tradecraft well and making it last operationally like our mbt's, subs, sm1 etc.With the lessons learn from operating the Chakri Naruebet we could operate better new lpd/lhd in more decades to come should we decide to indigenously build our own or purchase off the shelf ones.I can already envision changing the name of the Chakri Naruebet to RSS Singapura as singapore is an island nation and the RSS Singapura is also a floating island in the middle of the sea.The ideas are views above are all from an amateur.Please dont be shy in dissecting my ideas as the purpose of this forum is to inform the uninformed and to share and debate ideas.Cheers and have a good day.
2. No country will allow us to use their airbases to stage an attack on foreign soil. Our airplanes on Thai soil will be grounded in times of war, OR allowed to fly back to Singapore soil. BUT NOT stage an attack from there and fly back there. Doing that will be tantamount to stating that Thailand is Singapore's ally in the war, and Thailand will leave itself open to attack.