Thailand's aircraft carrier is a white elephant. As we speak,
its rusting in the docks as they can't afford to send it out to
sea.
Anyway, I feel an aircraft carrier (mini or otherwise) is a waste
of money. Yes, today's newspaper it was reported that M'sia is
looking to buy a supply ship for their navy which can also serve as
a mini aircraft career. But that doesn't mean we need to resort to
tit for tat tactics.
Think about it, who is our most likely adversary should war break
out? M'sia. And geographically we are so close to them, that it
probably makes more sense to launch or fighter jets from airbases
rather than from carriers. Yes, airbases are prone to attack, but
so are carriers. What's worst, if a carrier gets sunk, not only is
the carrier lost but also all the jets & copter aboard
it.
This joker I spoke to said that if S'pore gets attacked, the
carrier can always sail off & then launch its fighter jets to
counter attack. I guess he forgot that carriers aren't exactly know
for speed. Also, the enemy's navy & airforce will NOT allow the
carrier to sail away & will do their utmost to sink it.
The reason why the US needs aircraft carriers is 'cos they are
always sticking their noses in other ppl's affairs. Be it Korea,
Taiwan, Iraq or watever. It is obviously ridiculous to launch
fighter jets from their airbases in the US, ask them to fly all the
way from US to Korea, Taiwan or Iraq, complete their mission &
then fly back to the US. So for them, aircraft carriers are the
logical choice as they can sail the entire carrier group near these
countries & then launch their jets from there.
Now there's no way in hell S'pore is gonna be involved in a war
with some far away country like China or India. So what's the
justification for an aircraft carrier? What are we gonna do? Sail
it right into M'sian waters & launch jets from there? First of
all, the M'sian navy & airforce will definitely aim to sink our
carrier (together with all its jets).
Secondly, do you have any idea how much time, resources & money
is involved each time you launch a carrier? And not to mention the
risks taken if we are sending it into M'sian waters. Since M'sia is
so geographically close to S'pore, it makes no sense to dispatch a
carrier, especially since its faster, cheaper & more practical
to launch from our airbases.
Malaysia is not a 10 hour flight from S'pore. If it is, I concur
that we need a mini carrier. M'sia is so near to S'pore that
barring any AA fire, our jets can probably reach it in under 10
mins after being scrambled.
And if we don't intend to sail the carrier into M'sian waters, then
to where? To the Indian ocean? 
Into Thailand perhaps? Firstly, we need to obtain
clearance to sail a naval vessel into another country's waters.
Clearance which may NOT be granted. And even if its granted, tell
me, how practical is it to sail our carrier into Thai waters &
then launch jets from there, attach M'sia & then return to the
carrier?
And keep in mind, carriers need to be resupplied. We ain't talking
about a nuclear powered carrier like the USS Nimitz you know. Being
the slow moving ship that it is, when the carrier goes back to
S'pore to be resupplied & then sails back to its original
place, its a sitting duck.
It would be nuts to send out a carrier by itself. Hence the need
for carrier groups like those in the US navy. I can't recall the
exact composition of the USN's carrier group but I believe there
are 1 or 2 submarines, a fast patrol craft & several gunboats
or corvettes.
Our navy doesn't have a whole lot of vessels to begin with. If we
dispatch several of them to be part of our carrier group, what on
earth will be left for us to use to defend S'pore & also to
attach M'sian vessels? Don't forget hor, some of our vessels like
the LSTs are also needed to support the army.
IMO, its just not practical financially & operationally to
operate a carrier or mini carrier. The money would be better spent
on newer submarines or replacing our missile corvettes (since our
missile gunboats are being replaced by stealth frigates).
