Future Weapons of SAF
-
Commercial airlift. SIA cargo has 14 B747-400F with 110 tonnes payload (more than AN-70). SIA is also retiring their remaining fleet of B747 which can be converted to -400F freighters.
Buy AN-70 = white elephant. Problem with military transport is use for short time in 1 year, then no use for rest of the year. Even if in use, 90% of time, fly half empty so wasting fuel and capacity. Commercial airlift, not in military use = commercial use. Also SIA/Silkair got different aircraft for differing loads so fly full or near full (and also SAF will support SG economy).
SAF has no role (except tanker) that can't be fulfilled by commercial lift. Need to evacuate, use airbus/boeing aircraft. Transport personnel? fly airbus/boeing even more comfortable than C130 or A400M. Even C-130 get converted into supplement tanker.
In war, SAF no need to transport anything by aircraft.
One possibility, SG will get MRTT to replace KC-135s (1959/60s built) and use for specific transport needs (already super exp). KC767/777 or A340 MRTT. KC-777 good as long range to support US-SG redeployment. Tactical LAPES missions, SAR, use C-27J otherwise use CH-47. C-27J super cheap compared to C-130/A400M and in use by USAF and many other countries.
-
didn't mean to change topics but isn't it wise to acquire military transport plane that could carry 2A4? ( I assume that C130 not able to fit) outsource during peace time but not sure if is wise during tension time?
-
KC-135 can use for 80 year life. RSAF KC-135R built in 1959, 61 and 63 (2). So can use up to 2039, 2041 and 2043 but still think more likely replaced over next decade or 2.
C-130B built in 1958 and 1960 so just as old as KC-135s.
-
In normal time, not all L2A4 deployed overseas. Just enough for training needs.
During potential tension, L2A4 won't be deployed overseas. Tension also unlikely to be shorter than time taken to transport back via SIA cargo (6 hours to australia, 1-2 hours to load and 6 hours back).
In wartime, even military transport aircraft got problem on landing. Also, how many AN-70 can SAF afford? got a lot of other things to spend on. Definitely cannot match number of B747-400F. At the same time, even commercial aircraft nowadays equip with self protection eg flares. See IAI/Elbit offerings...
Would RSAF prefer more F-35 or AN-70 to carry L2A4? More fighter plane definitely better than more transport aircraft. Also, if L2A4 not outside SG, then AN-70 become white elephant again.
-
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3898951&c=EUR&s=AIR
Quite ironic that A-330 is offered in place of A400M due to A400M production delays.
-
Ie to say, further commercialising (aka outsourcing) our medium transport and airlift roles? Hmm, nice idea. But there would still be a need to carry out strategic airlift needs. The C-27 is good, but it still looks abit old to purchase already ...
-
The C-27J was selected by US Army and USAF for its future cargo aircraft in 2007 and 1st aircraft only delivered in Sep 2008. I don't think it is a bit old.
http://www.c27j.com/
In fact L-3 is also entering the C-27J for the USAF combat rescue tanker comp which will allow for in-flight and ground refuel (cue C-130 role replacement).
http://www.c-27j.com/files/4_20060405045219.pdf
Did I mention STOL capability?
I did a more detailed analysis here. 1/3 to 1/4 price of C-130 but 1/2 the capability.
http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=2314
-
I dun think e 2 Vastergotland subs will be replaces in 30 years time, they will most likely operates along e 4 new AIP subs
And E AA guns wont go, no air defence is complete without AA guns
6 new stealth corvettes will most likely end up looking likee Visby
E mistral & Python 5 will replace e Rayrider
-
BTW B747-400F have problem transporting MBT
1)No ramp or lift capable of lift MBT
2)Floorboard not strong enough & modifying e floorboard will take LOADS of time & effort
-
Yup, you are right about the loader (max 60k lbs for tunners or something like that).
I disagree on the modification bit though (won't take that much time and effort and certainly not as much time and effort as building new C-17s). Its not modifying the entire aircraft and loading isn't that major an issue to overcome (80 ton cranes to lift MBT onto a constructed fixed platform capable of carrying 6X tons at fuselage height). Commercial solutions include:
100 ton Lifts:
http://www.nauticexpo.com/prod/paolo-de-nicola/travel-lift-23347-185523.html
100 ton pullers on the platform.
http://www.posilock.com/100_Ton/100ton.htm
But the difference in opinion is irrelevant per below so I won't go much into it.
Seen the cost of a C-17 lately? US$350m each....
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/NATO_08-32.pdf
Ultimately, its far cheaper to buy 24 new Leopard 2s and base them permanently in Australia just for training (probably cost US$100-200m or something) rather than buying transport aircraft just to ship them back once for an event ie war that may not happen (or even to do modification, if required). MBT numbers not that significant just to justify the transports. Nah, ultimately still commercial shipping or even LSTs. DSTA/Mindef aren't dumb.
Some interesting links on the issue from CK & gang (aside from the standard rhetoric, there are some interesting facts):
http://www.ausairpower.net/wp82-draft.pdf
http://www.ausairpower.net/May-the-Force-Be-With-You-Cooper-P.pdf
http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Tanker-2000.html
-
Originally posted by spartan_6:
I dun think e 2 Vastergotland subs will be replaces in 30 years time, they will most likely operates along e 4 new AIP subs
And E AA guns wont go, no air defence is complete without AA guns
6 new stealth corvettes will most likely end up looking likee Visby
E mistral & Python 5 will replace e Rayrider
The hull life of the submarines is unlikely that long. We'd have to replace them by some time in 2020-2030.
-
It not only e floorboard tat needs mod, it affects e airframe
I agree e Vastergotlands maybe they wont be around in 30 years time but they surely will be around for another 10-15 years or when e news class enter survice, e Navy plans 2 operate a 6 boat fleet
Anyway i will like any comments about my points
-
Ya e C-17A r not cheap
but they r sure r useful for bringing our AH-64D,CH-47SD,T/A-50 or M-346 back home maybe leasing of only 4 aircraft is logical
Not 2 worried about our Superpuma, our LST will do
-
The navy plans to operate a 4 sub fleet. http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2005/nov/04nov05_nr.html The B747-400F airframe is already stressed to carry 110 tons. I agree with idea of leasing. USAF/RAAF may support SG by transporting the AH-64s and CH-47s back via their C-17/5s (which they have a lot more). If I understand correctly, that's how the AH-64s were deployed from to SG in 2006. The AH-64/CH-47s with external tanks can redeploy back to SG on its own steam from Brunei, Thailand and even India (via a stopover in port blair). Only those at Silverbell will probably need to be transported. Under PPP, RSAF may not own the jet trainers. The jets will not likely be used in SG. If T-50 is purchased, it can also deploy on its own steam from Korea (via Taiwan and Brunei w 3 tanks). In any case, there will be contingency planning to ensure that in any crisis, a significant proportion of the fleets will be in SG.
-
i am just looking at the current usage of Armour in the various Training ground. Namely : S.A. Aus, and India.
In time of crisis in SG you need heavy lift within a short period of time to move Asset from different direction back to SG. To scramble for heavy lift in time of needs may be hard to come by as there are other countries may have the same requirement or vendors may refuse to fly over hostile airspace.
It may be a bridge too far.
-
How many heavy lift transports does SG need? What is SG's heavy lift requirement? Can SG afford 100% of its requirement? Will having just a few eg 4 heavy transports make a difference? Can SG justify its cost? 1 C-17 = ??? MBT/??? MICV. How often will SG use heavy airlift? Is SG going to have white elephant 95% of time? Are the items shifted really that critical or merely good to have?
-
Transporting tanks requires a bloody roll on roll off ship, which we do not have. Transporting 40 or so tanks with 40 planes is just plain ridiculous.
-
Aren't the Endurance LPDs RoRo? Tanks were shipped using crane-loading/unloading before RoRo. Peacetime = shipping lines. Wartime = civil requisition. SG probably has the largest RoRo hub in SE asia. I'm sure a number of our shipping lines have RoRo ships as well. ST Eng just build 2 or 3 RoRos for transporting A380 parts in recent years.
-
Just checked. L2A4s are 55.15 tons. http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2006/dec/11dec06_nr2/11dec06_fs.html The endurance has a bow door/ramp that supports MLC 60 (or vehicles up to 60 tons) onto the tank deck. http://www.stengg.com/upload/572N81fXA1DTA3OViRd.pdf Speed at 15kts will mean ~2 weeks for a 9,000 km journey (eg from Egypt or Durban). Range in excess, need refuel. At 20 kts will probably take ~10 days. It'll take ~1-1.5 days from Brunei. ~2 days from Bangkok. ~2.5 days from India. ~3 days from Taiwan.
-
4 boat? e article dint say anything about 4 boat e Navy alreally annonced it will operate a 6 boat sub fleet
E lead-in trainer will most likely be based in France replacing e TA-4SU-1
Wat i means in e B747-400F is tat e internal supports & ribs supporting e floorboard had 2 under-go an extensive work
-
Imho, SAFcould replace Leo 2A4 with Leo 2A6. As for Herk, C-130J-30 would be possible or the A-400M. For medium-lift heli, I would go for S-70/H-60 or NH-90. Perrhaps RSAF would replace SAMs with MEADS, THAAD or Patriot. And who knows, maybe RSAF will have F-35, F-15SG, F-16 Blk 52 and/or Blk 60. Perhaps there too will be Maritime Patrol variant of C-27J to replace Fokker 50. As for tanker, my choice of A310/A330 or KC-767/777 stays. Btw, does SAF use any Russian weapon?
-
Yes, I believe the SAF uses the Russian Igla, as well as some old BRDM.
As Leo2A6.... the barrel length will be a problem.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
How many heavy lift transports does SG need?
What is SG’s heavy lift requirement?
Can SG afford 100% of its requirement?
Will having just a few eg 4 heavy transports make a difference?
Can SG justify its cost? 1 C-17 = ? MBT/? MICV.
How often will SG use heavy airlift? Is SG going to have white elephant 95% of time?
Are the items shifted really that critical or merely good to have?
I am not trying to argue we should have just questioning now that we have a larger and heavier armour force how does SAF going to support and maintain at the same performance.
Was also thinking the term forward defence..... and rapid deployment goes hand in hand. If SAF is still taking that approach i just think that maintaining that capabilities goes hand in hand.
Transport plane is an over support for all occasions. Together for Peace n able to meet crisis needs. I don;t think cirsis happen every year but it only need to happen once. thats all.
-
We have level 80 Deathknights and Warlocks, these are the future weapons of SAF. With our powers combined, we are invincible!
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Yes, I believe the SAF uses the Russian Igla, as well as some old BRDM.
As Leo2A6.... the barrel length will be a problem.
hmm why would a L2A6 barrel length be problematic ? too long for trailers ? shouldnt be right ?
@alwaysbemybaby,
might as well engage the burning legion as foreign talent and scrap NS