South East Asia Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

kwaigonegin · Apr 10, 2016

SouthernSky said:
Singapore would be interested in the B's ability to utilise non conventional runways, i.e roads/freeways.

I believe it will be both. The Bravos will certainly utilize civilian roads during times of major crises but I also believe in the not so distant future, Singapore Navy intends to fly them off carriers as well. I believe that to be the case in their long term strategic planning... Acquiring a couple of small carriers carrying 6-8 birds each.

Jura The idiot · Apr 10, 2016

kwaigonegin said:
... Acquiring a couple of small carriers carrying 6-8 birds each.

is there a link available saying this?

kwaigonegin · Apr 10, 2016

Jura said:
is there a link available saying this?

I know a person in the Singapore navy. Nothing concrete just rumors and tales however you can google Singapore JMMS.
I will say this though. Singapore has always turned into reality their dreams and hope and I know they have been thinking seriously about organic air power for many years now. I believe their partnership in the JSF program plays a key part in the overall strategic initiatives. As a tiny island nation they also know the extreme value of naval air power.
I also believe it will be based off the indigenous endurance 160 platform.

manqiangrexue · Apr 10, 2016

Japan also had the technology to win WWII but decided not to LOL I have the ability to run the 100 meters in 8 seconds but I decided not to LOL

Brumby · Apr 10, 2016

kwaigonegin said:
I believe it will be both. The Bravos will certainly utilize civilian roads during times of major crises but I also believe in the not so distant future, Singapore Navy intends to fly them off carriers as well. I believe that to be the case in their long term strategic planning... Acquiring a couple of small carriers carrying 6-8 birds each.

When Australia went through the debate on the F-35B and its strategic fit, there were equally strong views either way and so I would not be surprised that there are competing views within the Singapore Navy. However I would ask this question to you that influence my view that Singapore will not go for a sea based F-35B investment and that is I don't see a strategic fit in Singapore's security situation. Singapore is not in a power projection business and sea based dispersal of air assets is not cost effective and has limited value in context. If you think it through, I would even question the practical utility of operating F-35B's off civilian roads in major crises. Unlike the Harrier, the heat generated by the Bravo's and the maintenance demand makes it a questionable proposition of operating from less than ideal environment. I would suspect the Singapore government would want to see how the USMC deals with some of the practical operational issues as part of its decision making process.

Janiz · Apr 10, 2016

manqiangrexue said:
Japan also had the technology to win WWII but decided not to LOL I have the ability to run the 100 meters in 8 seconds but I decided not to LOL

Well, it seems like you don't know that Japan indeed have technical abilities to blow up the world if they want to. It's good for you to live in a warm cocoon of fantasy that they can't...

And that LOLs makes you pathetic with late joke.

kwaigonegin · Apr 10, 2016

Brumby said:
When Australia went through the debate on the F-35B and its strategic fit, there were equally strong views either way and so I would not be surprised that there are competing views within the Singapore Navy. However I would ask this question to you that influence my view that Singapore will not go for a sea based F-35B investment and that is I don't see a strategic fit in Singapore's security situation. Singapore is not in a power projection business and sea based dispersal of air assets is not cost effective and has limited value in context. If you think it through, I would even question the practical utility of operating F-35B's off civilian roads in major crises. Unlike the Harrier, the heat generated by the Bravo's and the maintenance demand makes it a questionable proposition of operating from less than ideal environment. I would suspect the Singapore government would want to see how the USMC deals with some of the practical operational issues as part of its decision making process.

I would agree if this is a profile for most other countries however Singapore is quite different. First off they woult most likely not use the VTOL features on civilian roads... Besides this would be only during extreme crisis where adverse effects on the roads afterward be damned lol.
As to strategic planning, Singapore is very unique in their thiking and execution. Think of it like the Leo2 MBTs, the need for 6 very modern frigates, AIP equipped attack subs, LSTs and few dozen F 15s and even more vipers. For a tiny island country that is no bigger than a large city it is armed to the teeth. Their carriers I believe would not be so much for power projection but rather defense of the home nation since it is surrounded by waters on all sides. Their military doctrine is to defeat the enemy way out at sea because they know if an opfor steps foot on land it's all over.

Jura The idiot · Apr 11, 2016

kwaigonegin said:
... Nothing concrete just rumors and tales however you can google Singapore JMMS.

my #1 hit:
Exposed: Singapore's Aircraft Carrier in Disguise

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

kwaigonegin said:
I will say this though. Singapore has always turned into reality their dreams and hope and I know they have been thinking seriously about organic air power for many years now. I believe their partnership in the JSF program plays a key part in the overall strategic initiatives. As a tiny island nation they also know the extreme value of naval air power.
I also believe it will be based off the indigenous endurance 160 platform.

for now, I just downloaded the brochure (it's available at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with charts inside the PDF)

and in the meantime two questions came to my mind:

the deck, strong enough?
how far from Singapore would you send that "pocket aircraft carrier"?

EDIT
LOL I even came back to finish the above point, as I've always thought the longer the cost, the more important carrier(s) could be; I've also thought Singapore is about as big as Prague, now I see I wasn't that off (719 against 496 sq. km) ... what am I missing please ?? (except Prague is not an island

Brumby · Apr 11, 2016

kwaigonegin said:
As to strategic planning, Singapore is very unique in their thiking and execution. Think of it like the Leo2 MBTs, the need for 6 very modern frigates, AIP equipped attack subs, LSTs and few dozen F 15s and even more vipers. For a tiny island country that is no bigger than a large city it is armed to the teeth. Their carriers I believe would not be so much for power projection but rather defense of the home nation since it is surrounded by waters on all sides. Their military doctrine is to defeat the enemy way out at sea because they know if an opfor steps foot on land it's all over.

Singapore's main security concern since it was expelled from the Malaya Federation (now Malaysia) is its immediate neighbour up north and Indonesia. Essentially it is surrounded by a large Muslim population. Given its land size and basically majority ethnic Chinese population, its main security objective is one of deterrence build on a modern and capable military with the best equipment it could afford. The racial riots in Malaysia in 1969 and in Indonesia in 1998 targeting Chinese would have an influence on its security assessment. If I view Singapore's security needs vs capability requirements I struggle to understood how a mini carrier would fit into the picture given the proximity of its immediate neighbours. Submarines would be a more effective deterrence.

Jura said:
I even came back to finish the above point, as I've always thought the longer the cost, the more important carrier(s) could be; I've also thought Singapore is about as big as Prague, now I see I wasn't that off (719 against 496 sq. km) ... what am I missing please ?? (except Prague is not an island

You are the naval expert. How would you use the carrier in Singapore's case? Threat assessments and scenario planning are very specific. How would the carrier play a role?

FORBIN · Apr 11, 2016

Jura said:
my #1 hit:
Exposed: Singapore's Aircraft Carrier in Disguise

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for now, I just downloaded the brochure (it's available at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with charts inside the PDF)

and in the meantime two questions came to my mind:

the deck, strong enough?

how far from Singapore would you send that "pocket aircraft carrier"?

EDIT
LOL I even came back to finish the above point, as I've always thought the longer the cost, the more important carrier(s) could be; I've also thought Singapore is about as big as Prague, now I see I wasn't that off (719 against 496 sq. km) ... what am I missing please ?? (except Prague is not an island

1/ Definitely not for a fighter which do in more 30 t.

And many member see many new helo carrrier with fighters but it is not the true coz almost all these countries don' t have plans and mainly money and i don't see there or here factual elements in more, nothing serious mainly blabla.

Singapore want only replace later her F-16 in AF but she is not in hurry coz have recent F-16C/D Bl 52/52+ young.
F-5S/T replaced by F-15SG with a more big number delivered, 40.

Last news Thailand want buy F-35B for her Chakri Naruebet hahaha

South East Asia Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

kwaigonegin

Colonel

Jura The idiot

General

kwaigonegin

Colonel

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

Brumby

Major

Janiz

Senior Member

kwaigonegin

Colonel

Jura The idiot

General

Brumby

Major

FORBIN

Lieutenant General