RSN assets

last SG · 2008-06-06T18:51:30+00:00

Unfortunately it wasn't the smartest thing to do... seriously how much damage did their super battleships do?the reaso nwhy they didn't do much more damage w...

NDPfreak SG

I'm just too curious why do other bigger states like the USA owns everything u can find in a modern warfare such as battleships, aircraft carriers while our own RSN do not own any battleships or aircraft carriers??

kotay SG

Ermmmm ... beyond the obvious question of why do we need an aircraft carrier or battleship in geopolitical terms?

How about that in resource terms we simply can't afford to operate one? The crewing requirement for a Nimitz class carrier alone is more than our entire RSN shipboard crew ... go count it yourself. One Nimitz Class has a ship's crew of 3,200 without the airwing, which adds another 2,500. Our entire RSN complement is only about 1,600 ...

It's not even just a case of money not enough but also bodies not enough.

HyperionDCZ SG

heres something that would be cool. We could have a UAVcarrier ! haha. Pack 1 LST with 300 UAVS for every role (including assault) and we have a starcraft style CARRIER already

fudgester SG

Erm.... aircraft carriers are for long-distance force projection.... which we don't really need.

And they cost a bomb to buy and operate. More than a bomb, in fact: something like US$4-5 billion/year is needed to operate those things.

And you never, ever send a carrier into battle all by itself. You need to have cruisers, destroyers, corvettes, minesweepers, subs, and tankers to support it. Hell, you need a few fighter squadrons on board the carrier, and the pilots to fly them. Which means that we'd need some carrier-compatible aircraft like the Superbugs.

So seriously.... what's the point of the RSN getting a carrier?

I-like-flings(m) SG

heres something that would be cool. We could have a UAVcarrier ! haha. Pack 1 LST with 300 UAVS for every role (including assault) and we have a starcraft style CARRIER already

great idea.. and u just need 300 kids to remote control those UAV.....

bladez87 SG

the reason why we dont have aircraft carrier is because it takes too much manpower to operate one and given the fact navy is the smallest of the 3 forces, they cant and dont need to get 1.

cairocks SG

Firstly, we can't afford it. We only have one city, able to support such the present arm forces of such size and technology is already a rather impressive achievement. To have a carrier battle group, we still need to built up a lot more things like the escorts, the logistics framework etc. Nowadays cost of living are already so high, I don't think we want GST, ERP and all sort of taxes getting any higher.

Secondly, we do not have such manpower. One aircraft carrier alone needs about the entire present RSN size crew. We would rather have more of our people out in the civilian workforce generating money into the country's economy then to have most of them stuck in the armed forces. If everyone is in the armed forces, where will the money come from?

Remember, the baseline is that we are really a extremely tiny nation. All these cost money and the cost would eventually comes back to the tax payers, which is us, the 4 million people with zero natural resources. Perhaps if you can play a old computer game call "civilsation", you could understand the advantage of having a lot of cities in a country each taking care of certain sector, generating money and enforcing each other compared to just one city trying to do everything at the same time. Though it is just a computer game and the real world is much more complicated, but it will give you an idea of survival on a country level.

16/f/lonely SG

Heck. No need to talk about manpower.

1 Nimitz carrier can already embark 80+ aircraft.

I think when we get a carrier, the RSN and RSAF can merge into 1 umbrella organisation onboard 1 ship. Laughing

NDPfreak SG

Well if that's the case, we are the vulnerable ones in terms of modern warfare in the seas... Ok lar, not that bad, at least we still have destroyers and frigates... And most importantly, our SUBMARINES!!!

spencer99 SG

Hi,

Actually I think Singapore is pretty well armed for its size. It is good that we have a conscript army which means that we can have a huge 'reserve' to be called up in times of war and at the same time doesn't have to maintain a large standing army.

If you look at the size of our neighbours' navy vs the amount of coastlines they need to patrol/defend.... we are very well armed indeed...

OldBird69 SG

NDPfreak, technically battleships don't exist anymore. The last one was USS Missouri, decommissioned in 1992 (you can visit it at Pearl Harbor).

Singapore, including RSN is VERY well-armed for its size. Only 9 countries operate aircraft carriers (not helicopter carriers) of some sort - US, Russia, Brazil, Spain, UK, France, Italy, India and Thailand. Ignoring Thailand (because their aircraft carrier is almost never used), the poorest of these 9 countries operating carriers, India, has a GDP that is ~7 times ours [India's GDP is US$1,098 billion, S'pore's GDP of $161 billion, source: IMF figures for 2007). Even a country like Australia, with GDP >5 times ours gave up their aircraft carriers over a decade ago. S. Korea, with 6 times our GDP has only LPDs.

Aside from S'pore not needing this type of long distance force projection, carriers require a task force to protect and supply ships to replenish/refuel ($$$) and in order to ensure having an operational carrier at any moment, you actually need more than one carrier, because the ship needs maintenance/upgrades/retrofit (or else you enemy can attack you when your ship is the dock). I think everyone can see in the case of Thailand, their carrier, HTMS Chakri Naruebet is pretty much a white elephant. Let's not repeat their mistake.

fudgester SG

What are you talking about? No aircraft carrier == vulnerable?

As someone else here has pointed out, if you buy an aircraft carrier, you might as well merge the entire RSN and RSAF into one single aircraft carrier fleet.

And with the costs..... you need a few billion to buy the carrier, another billion to buy the Superbugs, then you need to scrap the Vipers and the Super Eagles (since all the available RSAF pilots will be piloting the Superbugs), then you need to spend a few billion each year to operate and maintain the carrier......

...... and for what f*ck? Like I said before, carriers are for long-distance force projection, which we DON'T need at all.

Hell, if you send the proposed entire SAF aircraft carrier group somewhere.... we'll be TOTALLY vulnerable due to the total loss of air and sea cover for Singapore itself.

wonderamazement SG

spend the money on more jets and upgrades better than wasting it on some aircraft carrier.

kotay SG

Why do you think we are vulnerable?

arball SG

as mussolini once said.....

"italy is one big aircraft carrier!"

NDPfreak SG

Guys guys... This is just a opinion of mine... No need to get so worked up... In my point of view in modern warfares, aircraft carriers are the "rulers" of the seas... No doubt it cause a bomb to construct it, it also requires a huge amt. of manpower to sail her out to allow her operations to be a success... That I can understand... But what makes me feel awkward is, a navy w/o battleships?? That's ridiculous... Come on... I consider at least battleships presence in most navy... Since during the last world war, Japan has built 2 greatest battleships in the world, one named Yamato and the other named Musashi... Although the defeat of Japan in the Battle of Midway, IJN continued to construct more battleships and aircraft carriers in the upcoming battles despite the shortage of resources...

LazerLordz SG

WW2 has come and gone.

Naval warfare has shifted from pure size to that of nodes.

NDPfreak SG

Well all of us have never experienced WW2... So we cannot picture the events that happen on the particular day... But we have historians and 1st hand information passed down to us... But anyone has ever thought another world war would come one day??

kotay SG

Yes WW2, the event, has come and gone and there are lessons to be learnt from there. However, as LL briefly said, tactics and doctrines have changed since then.

We no longer fight the same way as we did in WW2 and as such, many of the platforms and lessons you may hold dear from that period are no longer applicable.

Black Aces SG

Just curious and this is not personal, How old are you, NDPfreak?