Possible Singaporean Aircraft Carrier

CheeZe

Active Member
Is a Light Carrier in Singapore's Future? | Defense News | defensenews.com

Thought there was a Singapore Navy thread but I don't see it in the search engine, save for the pictures thread.

Found this article online. Am pretty certain that F-35 procurement for SG is inevitable, though not within the next few years. However, will they actually make a light carrier? I know we have the capability to do it and the money. But is this merely a flight of fancy or something that is actually possible for the future?

Considering how we're dropping down to one land air base, having one or two LHDs that can house even a few F-35s would be a serious boost to Singapore's power projection.

The only consideration against it would be whether such a project would spark an arms race with Malaysia & Indonesia. I get the feeling both countries would not be terribly happy at such a prospect and work towards adding similar capabilities to their own armed forces.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
It would not spark an arms race largely because other countries know that Singapore has sound reasons to buy what it does and that a purchase of a ship that can embark fixed wing fighters doesn't necessarily mean its aimed at Singapore's neighbours.
In Malaysia's case, it is too occupied with maintaining security along the 1,400km eastern coastline of Sabah and concerns over the Spratlys. Malaysia also - even it it had the required funding - would not get a similar ship as it is not in line with the MAF's operational requirements or Malaysia's threat perceptions.
 

tonnyc

Well-Known Member
The Indonesian Navy wants carriers in the long run. Like, 2040-2050. Whether they need carriers aren't certain, but they would like to be capable of projecting force into the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean, and to some extent the Pacific Ocean. So far everyone that matter agree that the time is not anytime soon, that the Indonesian Navy needs to finish becoming a green-water navy before they start thinking of becoming a blue-water navy.

However, if Singapore gets a light carrier before then, I do believe that Indonesia will respond by advancing the time table for their own LHD/light carriers. Call it regional rivalry, but the idea of Singapore needing to project power will make Indonesian MINDEF wondering who Singapore wants to project power against. They will consider Malaysia and dismiss it, as IIRC the whole of Malaysia is already within RSAF's reach even without carriers. So they will conclude that Singapore intends to use it against Indonesia and prepare accordingly. Mind you, the Indonesian Navy wants carriers in the long run anyway, so Singapore foregoing carriers doesn't guarantee that Indonesia will also forego them anyway.

I personally don't see a good reason why Singapore wants to project power using light carriers. Is Singapore no longer content with its traditional strict neutrality? Is Singapore thinking of participating in the South China Sea dispute?
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I personally don't see a good reason why Singapore wants to project power using light carriers. Is Singapore no longer content with its traditional strict neutrality? Is Singapore thinking of participating in the South China Sea dispute?
I don't think so, its not like Singapore has a choice. I think its pretty clear who both Singapore and Indonesia are concerned about, and its not each other. They are both no doubt worried with the aggressiveness that China is asserting itself and her access. Which have resulted in several countries completely powerless to stop China.

Whats to stop China from imposing a tax to have traffic sail through the SCS? It moves 1/3 of the worlds shipping. They have already imposed fishing licences from Vietnam and Philippines.

Because of the way of things, the US is not going to stop China militarily from these type of things, its not the US's problem, it would be inappropriate. The US will do the big stuff, someone invades someone else, stop etc. But not for sinking a few ships, or disagreeing with people who owns some of the fishing grounds and oil wells.
 

tonnyc

Well-Known Member
I don't think so, its not like Singapore has a choice. I think its pretty clear who both Singapore and Indonesia are concerned about, and its not each other. They are both no doubt worried with the aggressiveness that China is asserting itself and her access. Which have resulted in several countries completely powerless to stop China.
Singapore and Indonesia should really communicate their intentions to each other well then. Right now the relationship between the two countries isn't as good as it could be. Not that it's bad, but there's plenty of areas where things could be improved.

It looks like both countries are worried about China's intention in the South China Sea but neither wants to be the first to break their traditional neutral stance on the issue.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The Indonesian Navy wants carriers in the long run. Like, 2040-2050. Whether they need carriers aren't certain, but they would like to be capable of projecting force into the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean, and to some extent the Pacific Ocean.
To a large extent, [assuming they wanted to] they already have some ability to project power into the South China Sea; they don't need a carrier for that.

Even taking into account that you're talking about the next 2 decades or so, I fail to see why Indonesia would want to project power into the the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Have there been any statement or hints made by Indonesia political or military figures to indicate that they might do as you suggest?

Singapore and Indonesia should really communicate their intentions to each other well then.
Both countries have a pretty good idea as to what their respective threat perceptions are and where their long term national interests are.

but neither wants to be the first to break their traditional neutral stance on the issue.
Why should they? The emphasis is on quiet diplomacy, regional cooperation over various issues and economic engagement. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from being more assertive, vocal or non-neutral over the Spratlys issue as this would affect bilateral relations with China.
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Singapore and Indonesia should really communicate their intentions to each other well then. Right now the relationship between the two countries isn't as good as it could be. Not that it's bad, but there's plenty of areas where things could be improved.
its not a kumbayah relationship - but its not unfriendly or ineffective

It looks like both countries are worried about China's intention in the South China Sea but neither wants to be the first to break their traditional neutral stance on the issue.
Singapore like everyone else is communicating with regionals and quietly bonding. Indonesia also has her own issues with china

everyone in the region has indicated to the US that they value their presence - ironic because the very thing china wanted to do was invoke a regional divide where countries would see the pacific and scs as "theirs", welcome china as a counterpoint and diminish US clout. The opposite has occurred - and the US hasn't needed to go to anyone - the region is lining up to co-operate or share capability with the US
 

tonnyc

Well-Known Member
To a large extent, [assuming they wanted to] they already have some ability to project power into the South China Sea; they don't need a carrier for that.

Even taking into account that you're talking about the next 2 decades or so, I fail to see why Indonesia would want to project power into the the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Have there been any statement or hints made by Indonesia political or military figures to indicate that they might do as you suggest?
I honestly do not see why myself. As far as I can tell, the argument boils down to:
1. After green-water navy, blue-water navy, hence carriers.
2. The US has them, China has them, India is getting them, and Australia's cheating with their LHD, especially if Tony Abbot gets his wish for F-35B, so Indonesia must get them too. Not a particularly good reason, but that's the vibe I observed.

As for hints, Connie Bakrie, a defense analyst with military and political connections, says that Indonesia needs at least 4 carriers in the future. Last year the Indonesian Navy also sent a team to look at Principe de Asturias when Spain offered to sell it.

I do not believe the Indonesia is considering carriers in the near future, but it's probably safe to say that they are thinking about it for the long term future.
 

Joe Black

Active Member
Australia's cheating with their LHD, especially if Tony Abbot gets his wish for F-35B.....
Ha ha ha, that's a really funny comment. We are not cheating mind you... Juan Carlos class LHD in which Canberra class LHD is based on was an assault ship that has got STOVL capabilities built, if you like, a mini carrier. Of course, ADF was thinking of more of a helo carrier rather than an aircraft carrier. To really embark the F-35Bs, I seriously think we need a 3rd LHD to do so.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
and Australia's cheating with their LHD, especially if Tony Abbot gets his wish for F-35B, so Indonesia must get them too. Not a particularly good reason, but that's the vibe I observed.


australias decision to purchase LHDs is directly due to the lessons learnt out of east timor

the selection has got zero to do with resurrecting carriers in the RAN
 

tonnyc

Well-Known Member
Ha ha ha, that's a really funny comment. We are not cheating mind you... Juan Carlos class LHD in which Canberra class LHD is based on was an assault ship that has got STOVL capabilities built, if you like, a mini carrier. Of course, ADF was thinking of more of a helo carrier rather than an aircraft carrier. To really embark the F-35Bs, I seriously think we need a 3rd LHD to do so.
australias decision to purchase LHDs is directly due to the lessons learnt out of east timor

the selection has got zero to do with resurrecting carriers in the RAN
Of course Australia isn't cheating and the Canberra isn't actually suitable for F-35B without serious redesign.

Yes, the decision to buy LHD isn't about resurrecting carriers. You will not get any argument from me about that.

There is no need to explain the above to me. I see many people saying silly things in the media. That doesn't mean I actually agree with them.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I honestly do not see why myself. As far as I can tell, the argument boils down to:
1. After green-water navy, blue-water navy, hence carriers.
2. The US has them, China has them, India is getting them, ...
India's had carriers for over 50 years. What's changed is that it's getting more, intending to have two or three instead of just one.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
India's had carriers for over 50 years. What's changed is that it's getting more, intending to have two or three instead of just one.
Also, India, like China, intends to build their future carriers at home. Both countries will likely continue with STOBAR whereas some of the other regional contenders could consider STOVL, assuming the US will offer them F-35Bs.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
IMO carriers are only part of the picture.

The fact that countries surround the SCS have been pretty ineffective at projecting power or heck, projecting anything other than a line on the map is pretty startling.

What the region needs are more capable navies and capable air forces.
Much of the disputed territory is 200-300 miles of mainland shore of the claiming country. In Vietnams case, its less than 200 miles.

They don't need a carrier to project. They need an aircraft than can fly ~600 miles and ships to back it up. A handful of operational fighters and a decent refuelling fleet for the each nation in the region.Throw in a shared airfield agreement (like Butterworth, but on the side of SCS) in each concerned country and you have it all over China.

They can do it. Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia. They can certainly do it enough to force China to the legal table and work out some sort of deal.

The problem will get worse when china has fully operational carriers. But for these nations land based aircraft are the answer. (except for Singapore, maybe, Singapore would be reliant on other nations cooperating and being reliable partners, unsurprisingly they aren't confident).
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
If only for SCS, Indonesian already have carrier :D

They only need to enlarge Ranai AB in Natuna island. Which basically that's the intention. Ranai AB already can support even for temporarily Fighters contingent, from what I see the most rotate to there are Hawk 200, from relative closer Pontianak AB.

Later on, in media the TNI chief already talking also stationed Apache there. So, say put a Sq of F-16, Flanker, or whatever turned to be F-5 replacement permanently (with capacities to add another sq or two for temporary placement), add Apache contingent in there, plus some CN-235/295 maritime ASW capable (thus made the AB joint services AB), guarded the AB with Medium-Long range SAM in the class of S-300/400, Patriot, or Aster 30, then practically you are going to have a Carrier Battle Group capabilities for SCS with much more economical cost.

I can see the need for Carrier as part of regional ambitions. However, for Indonesian purpose, which numerous islands facing SCS, Pacific or Indian Ocean that can be developed as frontline AB, thus negates the need for CBG, unless the Indonesian Navy need to projected power far from the Archipelago. Which I don't see happening even 20-30 years from now.

Singapore might need one, as air coverage for their Navy for securing trade line (which for Singapore is the life line) say in SCS, as they do not have teritory that can be used as protective air coverage. Indonesian, do not need that. Plenty suitable islsnds that can be developed for that purposes much more economical than CBG costs.

Although I can see the merit for ASW/LHD carrier in the future, but not full capacity CBG.
 

uzma123

New Member
nice post

Found this article online. Am pretty certain that F-35 procurement for SG is inevitable, though not within the next few years. However, will they actually make a light carrier? I know we have the capability to do it and the money. But is this merely a flight of fancy or something that is actually possible for the future?


_____________________
prince
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
They need an aircraft than can fly ~600 miles and ships to back it up.
In Malaysia's case, her possessions in the Spratlys are the furthest away from the Chinese mainland and for helicopters, are only about 90 minutes flying time from the Malaysian mainland. There is a base and various airports from which RMAF jets can be over the Spratlys in minutes.

They can do it. Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia. They can certainly do it enough to force China to the legal table and work out some sort of deal.
It's not as simple as that.

For one, different claimants have different levels of relationship with China and different ways of engaging China. Amongst all the countries, the Philippines has the weakest military but she has a Mutual Defence Treaty with Uncle Sam. Malaysia is in a better position - when compared to the Philippines - to safeguard its claims in the area and has already taken steps to improve the military infrastructure in Sabah, yet her policy over the Spratlys is driven by her policy towards China - to maintain the substantial economic interests with China that already exist and to engage China peacefully; including not openly critisising China or saying China ia a threat [in contrast with Vietnam and the Philippines].

Secondly, countries like Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines have overlapping claims amongst themselves. These countries all agree on a Code of Conduct, to engage rather than confront China, to perhaps jointly drill the area, not to raise tensions etc, but the fact remains that they still have
overlapping claims.

''Regional Disorder: The South China Sea Disputes'' by the International Institute for Strategic Studies has categorised the claimants and non-claimants -

Vietnam and the Philippines are the ‘front line’ states, where ‘tensions with China are more obvious and more politically charged while clashes occur more regularly’

Malaysia and Brunei are ‘the quieter claimants’ and their challenges to China are ‘rare but not non-existent’

Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand are ASEAN’s ‘anxious’ cohort, with a strong focus on ‘dispute management’

Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos are the ‘disinterested’ players: ‘Firstly, they hold no direct claims in the sea; and, secondly, they are close allies of China’.

A theory I've heard from a defence writer is that China wants the various claimants to first acknowledge China's greater diplomatic and economic clout over the U.S. and U.S. allies like Japan, and the fact that China - not the U.S any longer - is now the new power in the Asia Pacific. China's also wants the claimants not to be influenced in any way by the U.S. and U.S. allies over how to deal with the Spratlys issue. Apparently, during the 1990's the U.S. and Japan were actively - behind the scenes - urging the claimants to deal with China more firmly and not bow to Chinse pressure: this angered China as it views the U.S. and Japan meddling in affairs that don't concern them.

After that is done and when the claimants stop being ''confrontational'' and ''unreasonbale'', China will make some certain consessions and parcel out the reefs/islands to the various claimants, either indefinitely or for an unspecified period; with the issue to be resolved at a much later date.
 
Last edited:

bdique

Member
I can't see why RSN would need a carrier in the short term. Singapore has no geographical claims that fall within China's nine-dash line. No need to have an enduring presence there.

LHD with embarked transport/attack helos, and maybe even some fixed wing aviation - this I can envision. This is a neat progression in terms of RSN's amphib ops capability.

You could argue for a light carrier for supporting amphib ops, but in war I don't foresee RSN operating outside of Singapore-based air cover, so that argument is sort of moot.

You could also argue for a light carrier to help keep the SLOCs open, in peacetime or in war, but the RSN already has the ships, aircraft and submarines capable enough to do these. The upcoming U218SGs and LMVs (and new MPAs perhaps?) are just going to strengthen this capability in the near future.

I really can't see a light carrier happening anytime soon.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
After that is done and when the claimants stop being ''confrontational'' and ''unreasonbale'', China will make some certain consessions and parcel out the reefs/islands to the various claimants, either indefinitely or for an unspecified period; with the issue to be resolved at a much later date.
Well I am sure thats what China would hope would happen. If the claimant nations are happy for that to happen then great, everyone is happy.

Of course China will no doubt keep exploratory drilling and keep most of the resource accessible areas for itself. No doubt claiming a majority and charging other nations fishing licences, and imposing shipping taxes for transport through that area. I would imagine Singapore would have particular issue with shipping taxes.

If they would want to set thing more on their own terms then they will have to band together to form some sort of alliance and give the international community one voice and a clear view. Its possible, I don't see overlapping claims as insurmountable. Many countries have had and still do have overlapping claims. Antarctica for example has many overlapping and yet to be claimed areas.

As for Singapore operating a carrier, I am skeptical. Particularly if its a 14,000t LPD (or even a slightly larger varient). Thats very small, particularly for something operating F-35's independently. However, I could see them operating F-35'bs and seeking allies in which to train with and possible cross deck with.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Let me preface my post with saying the neither the TNI nor the SAF consider each other as a military threat.
Singapore and Indonesia should really communicate their intentions to each other well then. Right now the relationship between the two countries isn't as good as it could be. Not that it's bad, but there's plenty of areas where things could be improved.
The problem with that is that Singaporeans have heard the Indonesians clearly. Certain segments of Indonesian society and their body politic are saying that they can be as assh0lic as they like, consequences be dammed.

This Indonesian insistence on being A** of regional proportions has reduced the level of trust and willingness to work together - as Singapore faces a toxic brand of Indonesian nationalism.

In October 2013, Indonesia conducted it's largest deployment of warplanes to Hang Nadim Airport in Batam during the Angkasa Yudha war games. It is noted that some Indonesian flights took off from Hang Nadim Airport to destination Natunas, while ignoring instructions from Changi air traffic control, whose job was to ensure safe flight separation between commercial traffic and Indonesian aircraft on exercise.

Further, on 28 Oct 2014, a C90GTi King Air owned by ST Aerospace and was operated by its pilot training subsidiary, Pacific Flight Services was intercepted by Indonesian fighter jets. It was flying from Sibu Airport in Sarawak to Seletar Airport in Singapore when it was intercepted by the Indonesian jets and ordered to land at the Supadio military airbase in Pontianak, Kalimantan. The TNI said the plane illegally flew into its airspace and the Singapore-registered plane was fined 60 million rupiah (S$6,300) before it was released - this level of stupidity will have long-term consequences (see this Nov 2014 blog post on 'Brisk RSAF air activity noted over Singapore' and this Feb 2014 Jakarta Globe article, titled 'End Indonesia’s Aimless Spat With Singapore').

Beyond this Oct 2014 freedom of navigation incident (it is important to note that the C90GTi King Air was not flying to Indonesia but through their air space and with a filed flight plan), in 2007 the Indonesian Navy enforced a sand embargo on Singapore theoretically on environmental grounds. But Indonesian lip service on concerns about the environment is bogus. This bogus concern for the environment is demonstrated in 1997, 1998 and again in June 2013, when Malaysians and Singaporeans were suffocated by the thick haze caused by forest fires from Indonesia. The recurring haze led to an agreement on trans-boundary haze pollution was approved by the ASEAN in 2002. However, Indonesia has shown no sign that it intends to ratify the agreement. As a compromise, in October 2013, ASEAN members agree to implement the Haze Monitoring System, which was paid for and developed by Singapore, and again provided free to Indonesia. It essentially uses satellite imagery to establish the areas where burning occurs and is dependent on Indonesian input to upload land concession maps. So you might say, that, Singaporeans suffer from a suffocating relationship with certain members of the Indonesian Government, which we have a privilege to pay for with our tax dollars.
its not a kumbayah relationship - but its not unfriendly or ineffective
The SAF and the TNI have been cultivating the relationship for decades and Singapore is in tune with Indonesian sensitivities.
Singapore like everyone else is communicating with regionals and quietly bonding.
Yup. ASEAN has to grow closer or grow irrelevant, which is entirely possible if the new Indonesian leadership continues to play the wrong chess moves.
everyone in the region has indicated to the US that they value their presence - ironic because the very thing china wanted to do was invoke a regional divide where countries would see the pacific and scs as "theirs", welcome china as a counterpoint and diminish US clout. The opposite has occurred - and the US hasn't needed to go to anyone - the region is lining up to co-operate or share capability with the US
Thanks to a memorandum of understanding (1990 MoU) signed by then US Vice-President Dan Quayle and then Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in Tokyo on 13 November 1990, the US has had a presence in Singapore for the last 2 decades. The 1990 MoU permits the use of existing military facilities in Singapore by the US armed forces, calls for enhanced a bilateral relationship to facilitate joint training and interoperability, and enables the USN to remain forward-deployed in Southeast Asia in lieu of permanent bases in the region.

Since 1991, the US has maintained the US Air Force's (USAF's) 497th Combat Training Flight (497th CTF) at Singapore's Paya Lebar Airbase (PLAB) in eastern Singapore. It also relocated the USN's Logistics Western Pacific and Combined Task Force 73 (CTF 73) to the country's northern port facility of Sembawang Terminal just prior to the closure of Naval Base Subic Bay in 1992. The close relationship has also seen an amendment of the 1990 MoU to include the use of Singapore's Changi Naval Base (CNB). CNB was subsequently upgraded in March 2001 with a deep-draft pier that is capable of supporting USN aircraft carriers - entirely at Singapore's own expense. In July 20015, the Strategic Framework Agreement for a Closer Cooperation Partnership in Defence and Security (2005 SFA) was signed between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and President George W Bush. The 2005 SFA is a natural step in the expansion of bilateral ties between the US and Singapore. And Singapore is hosting USN''s littoral combat ships out of CNB.
 
Last edited:
Top