aircraft carriers seem to be uneccesary. our situation doesnt
warrant one really. i guess the most we can go would be to base
f-35 type aircrafts on the endurances as breif attachements, (to
demonstrate that we have the capability ?)
but however not for long-term power projection
purposes.
it sort of reminds me of the australian amphib ship
thingy...superbugs on a crate.....
2 engines (A) are better than 1(B) of course lar.
if in A, you lose an engne, you still can fly back to fight
another day....
in B, you lose an engine... bye bye... quite a waste of pilots
eh?
We won't lose a pilot just cos a single engine plane flames
out. Pilots flying the F-16s readily train flying flame out
approaches on simulation. If necessary, they can glide the
aircraft nearer to base before ejecting too.
Any other failures that would result in a catastrophic failure
in a single engine aircraft will also cause a catastrophic failure
in a twin engine aircraft.
A Singapore aircraft carrier is an unlikely event in the next 10
years. But don't rule it out. Years ago, just as Singapore
was acquiring the F-16As, everyone figured that the F-15s were an
impossibility, that they were too "offensive".
There are 101 ways to say its unlikely, but when we really need
it, we'll get it.
