S'pore wants to buy 100 of world's most advanced fighters
-
Originally posted by bloodsucker:
Quite nice pic. I cant imagine what Msia would have to say IF we get this. Couple this with the pedra branca and the water issue and wateva not, they might go bonkers. lol
Ya I think that this is a more feasible option. RSN alr has the Endurance class of amphibious transport docks, which helis can land on, so this would be more realistic, though I doubt that we would really get this. I checked on wikipedia that this is only 8500 tonnes loaded weight, while the Japanese ship weighs in at 18000 tonnes loaded. I cant imagine how many times bigger in dimensions this is.
And in any case, I see no reason for us to have such a ship. For maritime patrol purposes, the current RSS Endurance is good enough. We dont really need F-35s flying over and watching the pirates do we?? Having Fokker-50s on the ship would be better, but I havent heard of any F-50s doing carrier-based missions yet. I dont even know whether it can be launched and landed on the carrier.
LOL!
Endurance for maritime patrol. Poor Endurance.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
You guys know the RSN has a serious manpower shortage.
But do you guys know how severe it is?
And please tell me why there's a requirement for such a strike craft. Don't tell me that a small-aircraft carrier/helo-carrier or whatever is needed to strike to defend or any bull-shit like these.
If I have limited manpower I would still try for something beyond my punch?
Thats right. But 10 years down the road? 20? 30? Policy changes? Females serving NS?
These are other variables that we cannot predict in the future. Its easy to rule out things if we use current circumstances as the premise for future options. Who knows? Maybe the carrier doesn't even have to be too big if they are shooting off UCAVs?
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Thats right. But 10 years down the road? 20? 30? Policy changes? Females serving NS?
These are other variables that we cannot predict in the future. Its easy to rule out things if we use current circumstances as the premise for future options. Who knows? Maybe the carrier doesn't even have to be too big if they are shooting off UCAVs?
Still it is extremely unlikely.I don't think our outlook in our defend needs will change in 10 years by this much.
To have such a ship will show a extremely marked departure from our current tactics.
Moreover, our frigate requires a minimum crew of less than 80 and there's problems even with that. And you know very well it is a fairly automated ship that relies on systems to slim-down the manpower requirement.
No. 10 years will not suffice. Or even if you rope in females to do NS. Why? Think about it. Why does the RSN has the highest proportion of regulars amongst all the services relying on a small number of regulars?
The training! Do you know how much there is to learn? It won't make any sense to use NSFs to fill ALL or even majority of the gaps.
-
Yeap, that I have to agree with you. The outlook in terms of manpower definitely rules out the possibility of having a floating bird farm any time soon.
IMO It is more likely that we might see a AAW frigate than anything else within the next 10 years.
-
Read up on PAAMS. ;)
-
It is interesting that some people here can consider using NSFs to run a Carrier Air Wing!
Think about it... the PRC really wanted a a/c carrier... and they have to buy hulks from Russia to 'study' and analyze and right now they didn't have a single carrier...
even the russians only have 1 a/c carrier.....
-
yup, I agree that even if singapore going to own a carrier, it won't happen so soon. Our neighbour thailand who purchased a 11 kilo ton carrier also took few years to get everything ready including hiring, training, maintenance, politics and so on for the carrier to go into service.
Anyway, government also never mention the exact time to purchase these 100 F-35.
They only state the plan. I don't think we will need it in 10 years time. -
Originally posted by Display Name:
yup, I agree that even if singapore going to own a carrier, it won't happen so soon. Our neighbour thailand who purchased a 11 kilo ton carrier also took few years to get everything ready including hiring, training, maintenance, politics and so on for the carrier to go into service.
Anyway, government also never mention the exact time to purchase these 100 F-35.
They only state the plan. I don't think we will need it in 10 years time.
Haha.....honestly, I don't see the point of having an aircraft carrier.And looking at the current framework, how the RSAF and RSN cooperates in the helo-ops for the frigates and LSTs. I can safely say having a carrier will change everything.
Speaking to ASWO (ASW officer for helo) one day, I found out why he kept appearing, on and off, and didn't seem to have any fixed place and was tired of moving around. He aptly summed it all up when he told me this: I'm a RSN officer but my name is in the RSAF pay-roll.
This is glaring evidence of the effects of having a lean manpower SAF oftens boasts about. For all the advantages of such a slim force to work the RSN or SAF for the matter, there are many disadvantages that follow. The one I high-lighted is a small one.
-
Seriously SG dosen't need an aircraft carrier or heli carrier or even amphibious carrier. Such carriers are usually meant to be offensive rather than defensive. Look at the history of aircraft carriers and you will find that their primary objective for patrolling is to be able to send their planes to attack a place more rapidly rather than defending their own waters.
Also, the major problem arrising from having an aircraft carrier is the disruption of peace within SEA. Why in heaven must a small country like us process such an offensive weapon? I thought the primary doctrine for our defence force is to deter the enemy long enough to recieve help from our allies? I would rather have more defenses on the island than to have a carrier floating somewhere in the straits.
-
SG no need aircraft carrier,too big liao ~~~
when i was in Navy,i did duty when US came over,their ship is so big,i can spot it when it is about 2 klicks out... Huge !!
-
Originally posted by gaoxingdcf07:
SG no need aircraft carrier,too big liao ~~~
when i was in Navy,i did duty when US came over,their ship is so big,i can spot it when it is about 2 klicks out... Huge !!
Heh.....2 clicks is VERY close as far as the sea is concerned.With the naked eye, one can see a ship of that size roughly 6-7 miles away.
With binoculars, up to 12 miles.
At night, some ships can actually be sighted up to 20 miles away if their lights are bright enough!
-
Originally posted by Display Name:
yup, I agree that even if singapore going to own a carrier, it won't happen so soon. Our neighbour thailand who purchased a 11 kilo ton carrier also took few years to get everything ready including hiring, training, maintenance, politics and so on for the carrier to go into service.
Anyway, government also never mention the exact time to purchase these 100 F-35.
They only state the plan. I don't think we will need it in 10 years time.no way singapore will own a carrier. the manpower and resources needed to sustain a carrier group is way too much. you need to double or triple RSN's manpower to even come close to the manpower requirement for a carrier group.
and besides, looking at the rate which RSAF is churning out pilots, they won't buy 100 F-35s. more like 20+ and spare parts. besides, it's "Up to 100 F-35s", so the interpretation is up to you.
oh btw, an aircraft carrier will destabilise the entire region. some countries were not exactly happy when kitty hawk was docking at CNB for transit, much less if the kitty hawk is actually ours. think arms race?
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
Seriously SG dosen't need an aircraft carrier or heli carrier or even amphibious carrier. Such carriers are usually meant to be offensive rather than defensive. Look at the history of aircraft carriers and you will find that their primary objective for patrolling is to be able to send their planes to attack a place more rapidly rather than defending their own waters.
Also, the major problem arrising from having an aircraft carrier is the disruption of peace within SEA. Why in heaven must a small country like us process such an offensive weapon? I thought the primary doctrine for our defence force is to deter the enemy long enough to recieve help from our allies? I would rather have more defenses on the island than to have a carrier floating somewhere in the straits.
Because, if we can deliver a first round knockout punch, the war is over.
-
cuz me is in the container,then the windows cannot see properly,cuz dirty.. Then somemore i shortsighted,nv wear glasses when looking out,so i aga aga estimate got 2 klicks... Paiseh...
-
Originally posted by justdoit77:
I am thinking is Singapore going to have an aircraft carrier to equip these F-35 fighters and send it to patrol at malacca strait.
One of the singapore's weakest link is at the malacca strait, deploying a carrier there is indeed useful to prevent potential blockage from navy, pirates and "fake pirates".Just my guessing, lol
It's the straits of Malacca and not Panama so near need carrier for fark? The Island of SIngapore is one big carier by itself.
-
Originally posted by Short Ninja:
It's the straits of Malacca and not Panama so near need carrier for fark? The Island of SIngapore is one big carier by itself.
Haha, agreed. If we buy a carrier, we'd kinda be buying an offshore island with the intention of flattening our neighbours :)
-
Originally posted by bloodsucker:
Haha, agreed. If we buy a carrier, we'd kinda be buying an offshore island with the intention of flattening our neighbours :)
i think the carrier itself also bigger than Pedra Branca...
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Because, if we can deliver a first round knockout punch, the war is over.
How do you define a " knockout punch"?
If nukes can't even "knockout" a country, what makes you think a carrier can?
And btw i don't think any country would be without a proper defence system to detect any attacks.
More planes, ships and newer technology would be more practical than having a carrier group around.
Also, wars are never over. Although offically it may be, there will still be resistance fighters all around causing trouble, so why even bother to start one?
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
How do you define a " knockout punch"?
If nukes can't even "knockout" a country, what makes you think a carrier can?
And btw i don't think any country would be without a proper defence system to detect any attacks.
More planes, ships and newer technology would be more practical than having a carrier group around.
Also, wars are never over. Although offically it may be, there will still be resistance fighters all around causing trouble, so why even bother to start one?
What leads you to presuppose 'nukes can't even "knockout" a country'? Nuclear weapons are very much a threat to the stability and even survival of any country, hence the furore over Iran and North Korea concerning their alleged possession of nuclear weapons. Think over it yourself - wouldn't you consider Singapore to be especially vulnerable to such a weapon?
You don't think "any country would be without a proper defence system to detect any attacks"? You couldn't be any further from the truth. You may simply be ignorant, but a lot of countries do not have comprehensive early warning systems.
Also, you think that the only method of defense conceivable is to merely ward off everything that is being thrown at us. However, Shotgun is talking about pre-emptively striking at the enemy's heartland, to hinder the progress of their invasion. If this enemy is distant but possesses carriers to attack us, and we have no such assets to strike at their country, it is our loss, after all.
And I'm amused when you simply generalise a carrier group as not practical. If we're going to perform a pre-emptive strike, "more planes, ships and new technology" will not be more practical when they have neither the range nor passage to perform such an operation. A carrier group, on the other hand, allows us to extend the reach of our military power as long as there is deep water for the carrier to travel over.
What are you talking about with "wars are never over"? I don't think we regard the Vietnam War as current, do we? And why are you talking about resistance fighters when the topic is on Singapore's defense? Nobody ever said that Singapore was going to invade a country. Irrelevant.
-
ok while you people are still on the topic about aircraft carriers...
F35 can V/STOL right?
-
Originally posted by Ariedartin:
. A carrier group, on the other hand, allows us to extend the reach of our military power as long as there is deep water for the carrier to travel over.
u must be realistic to our geo political situation and our threat assessment to our situation.Chances are that if we are unable to reach a particular area of operation, the forces at that area is most likely to be unable to reach us also.
Considering that there are medium powers (eg India) with carriers in our region that may reach us, the strength of their fleet doesnt require us to pre empt them by sending a carrier fleet to perform blockage. We can deal with them assymetrically.
Considering that we have to go against countries like North Korea and Iran, be well assured that even US has to hesitate in deploying their forces with their carrier fleet all combined so lets not talk about Singapore. We have technologies within our access to handle them.
-
The most fundumental stands: That the cards are usually with the defenders.
-
Originally posted by wonderamazement:
ok while you people are still on the topic about aircraft carriers...
F35 can V/STOL right?
Yes the F-35 has a variant that can do VTOL, but it makes no sense to have little ships carrying a few F-35s VTOLing for every mission. Conventional arrestor landings is still much more economical cos landing vertically consumes loads of time and fuel. Its not a smart idea to do so.
-
Aren't F35s capable of vertical take-off and landing? Very suitable for Singapore.
-
Originally posted by Ariedartin:
What leads you to presuppose 'nukes can't even "knockout" a country'? Nuclear weapons are very much a threat to the stability and even survival of any country, hence the furore over Iran and North Korea concerning their alleged possession of nuclear weapons. Think over it yourself - wouldn't you consider Singapore to be especially vulnerable to such a weapon?
Do you know the term "Second Strike"? While if you don't, it means the capability to retaliate without any form of assistance from the mainland. Variations of this include having well-protected, well-hidden silos, nuke subs and carrier groups out at sea and stationing military assets and professionals out of the country. These ensures that even if the country is nuked, it will be possible to retaliate back.
The international communtities are concerned over nuclear programme in Iran and N.K because they are worried that any aggression may results in a large number of deaths, not because they are afraid that they can't retaliate (or in your terms, being knocked-out)
Singapore is vulnerable. Every country is. However, you've missed out the point that most country have reliable defense system to counter such a threat. Also, a country which uses nukes will face alot of economical and political pressure by the international community and neighbours of the target country. So i don't think SG will be the only one worrying if it were to be nuked, malaysia and indoneasia will be sure to join in.
You don't think "any country would be without a proper defence system to detect any attacks"? You couldn't be any further from the truth. You may simply be ignorant, but a lot of countries do not have comprehensive early warning systems.
Am i ignorant? Or are you arrogant? Even having a group of people watching out on top of trees can also be considered a form of early warning system. Any country which have a military force would definitely have early warning capability. Without it, their army are sitting ducks.
Also, you think that the only method of defense conceivable is to merely ward off everything that is being thrown at us. However, Shotgun is talking about pre-emptively striking at the enemy's heartland, to hinder the progress of their invasion. If this enemy is distant but possesses carriers to attack us, and we have no such assets to strike at their country, it is our loss, after all.
Striking at the enemy's heartland to hinder the progress of their invasion? I think that would only further agitate them, causing a more rapid invasion. Knowing our nation's emphasis on diplomacy and deterrence, i think the internation communty and our friends would have responded to the threat by pressuring them economically or by the means of force if our "enemy" was to send a carrier out for us. Just like what the coalitions did for kuwait and saudi arabia in response towards iraq's greed. Also, in the terms of defense, i think planes taking off from the mainland would be at a advantage when facing the planes which flew from the carrier.
And I'm amused when you simply generalise a carrier group as not practical. If we're going to perform a pre-emptive strike, "more planes, ships and new technology" will not be more practical when they have neither the range nor passage to perform such an operation. A carrier group, on the other hand, allows us to extend the reach of our military power as long as there is deep water for the carrier to travel over.
You are amused at my words? While i nearly laughed my ass out when i read your reply. Pre-emptive strike? That would make us the aggressor and we will be the ones at fault. Our military force is more for defense rather than for aggression and having a carrier group may not equates to extending our reach, others have defenses too you know.
What are you talking about with "wars are never over"? I don't think we regard the Vietnam War as current, do we? And why are you talking about resistance fighters when the topic is on Singapore's defense? Nobody ever said that Singapore was going to invade a country. Irrelevant.
There are usually two outcomes of war. Either the defender wins or the aggressor wins. When the defender wins, the nation would most probably be hostile to the aggressor nation and would most like impose certain santions or boycott products made from that country. When the aggressor wins, there will always be resistance movement to counter the invading forces. When i said wars are never over, i include economical and social, physical and physcological warfare as well as the board spectrum of warfares which would be too many to be listed out.
Lastly, resistance fighters are considered a part of a nation's defence. Irrelevant? Guess you're too innocent instead.