This presages new concepts of operation for Singapore's light/amphibious infantry forces, and how vertical lift aviation will be used to support them and be supported by them.
C.f. CH-47F buy and CH-47D retirement, and the Caracal buy and Puma retirement, the changing ratios between medium and heavy lift, and upgrades to the Apache fleet.
In a combined Quadrilateral + Singapore fleet Singaporean Chinooks can fly off the current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance-class_landing_platform_dock and future (Endurance-160?) off Australian LHDs and US aircraft/helicopter carriers.
Controversy continues with many in the Australian Army remaining unhappy with Tiger attack helocopter purchase eg. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/tiger-tiger-not-so-bright/
So Australia may buy Apaches like Singapore's earlier, correct decision.
It should have worked in theory, but unfortunately it did not work in practice. The Tigers were a perfect fit for the ADF's requirements had they actually generated useful flight hours. Unfortunately the tyranny of geography was probably a big factor in hobbling the Tiger, so it is good to see the ADF stressing the build-here approach for new acquisitions like Land 400.
A de jure Quad plus One fleet, I feel, is unlikely, except during stuff like RIMPAC. Instead, if de facto joint Quad plus One ops are carried out, my suspicion is that it will be presented as an improbable series of happy coincidences.
US and Australian ships will probably be heavily subscribed in a joint operational fleet scenario, so discreet lily-padding will probably be the order of the day.
Separately, Singapore's Apaches were progressively upgraded through the years, including the HIEWS electronic warfare upgrade and the more recent SATCOM upgrades. Last I read, the RSAF is rumoured to be considering further upgrades to bring the small fleet up to E model standard.
On a related note, my gut feel is that the Singapore Hercs are due for replacement. Rather than getting more Hercs, my sense is that the RSAF is gunning for much heavier tactical transports, just as how the helicopter fleet is growing heavier with a bigger proportion of Chinooks.
To my mind the only two real candidates are the A400M and the C-2, but each brings their quirks. The A400M has been suffering from a decade-long teething problem with its fancy gearboxes, while the C-2 uses familiar commercial turbofans and makes extensive use of COTS components. However, the C-2 is a jet, making it more vulnerable to FOD and possibly not slow enough to tank up the helicopter fleet, and most of all, it is Japanese. Both have comparable STOL performance, unit cost, payload and cruise speed. Crucially, both can land one combat loaded and armoured Bionix, Terrex, or Hunter, onto a short airstrip or dirt field.
Yes supporters of the Tiger never highlight the absence of Australian Tigers during 10+ years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I understand Australian forces, instead, had to rely on the attack helicopters of their allies eg. Dutch Apaches in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Netherlands
To interact with US forces and to use the US’s highly developed logistic/spare and upgrade systems Australia should have bought US Apaches or Vipers and should do so in future.
Indeed Singapore is too small and too close to overwhelming Chinese forces in Southeast Asia and in the SCS to formally add itself to the Quad. Instead Singapore might occasionally send a vessel to the Malabar and other multilateral and bilateral exercises. For example Singapore sent a frigate to Malabar 2007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malabar_(naval_exercise)#2007
I don’t know what Singapore, as a small, island nation, would do with heavy transport aircraft? The problem plagued A400M has caused grief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas#Delays_and_problems and to be the first and maybe only foreign buyer of Japan’s C-2 may be risky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2
Japan’s lack of experience in selling complex weapon systems was a major reason why Australia didn’t buy Japanese submarines.
Better to buy a new model of the mature, widely used by Singapore and allies (US, Australia, NZ) Hercules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules#Operators
4 comments:
This presages new concepts of operation for Singapore's light/amphibious infantry forces, and how vertical lift aviation will be used to support them and be supported by them.
C.f. CH-47F buy and CH-47D retirement, and the Caracal buy and Puma retirement, the changing ratios between medium and heavy lift, and upgrades to the Apache fleet.
Hi retortPouch
In a combined Quadrilateral + Singapore fleet Singaporean Chinooks can fly off the current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance-class_landing_platform_dock and future (Endurance-160?) off Australian LHDs and US aircraft/helicopter carriers.
Controversy continues with many in the Australian Army remaining unhappy with Tiger attack helocopter purchase eg. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/tiger-tiger-not-so-bright/
So Australia may buy Apaches like Singapore's earlier, correct decision.
Cheers
Pete
Thank you for your reply!
It should have worked in theory, but unfortunately it did not work in practice. The Tigers were a perfect fit for the ADF's requirements had they actually generated useful flight hours. Unfortunately the tyranny of geography was probably a big factor in hobbling the Tiger, so it is good to see the ADF stressing the build-here approach for new acquisitions like Land 400.
A de jure Quad plus One fleet, I feel, is unlikely, except during stuff like RIMPAC. Instead, if de facto joint Quad plus One ops are carried out, my suspicion is that it will be presented as an improbable series of happy coincidences.
US and Australian ships will probably be heavily subscribed in a joint operational fleet scenario, so discreet lily-padding will probably be the order of the day.
Separately, Singapore's Apaches were progressively upgraded through the years, including the HIEWS electronic warfare upgrade and the more recent SATCOM upgrades. Last I read, the RSAF is rumoured to be considering further upgrades to bring the small fleet up to E model standard.
On a related note, my gut feel is that the Singapore Hercs are due for replacement. Rather than getting more Hercs, my sense is that the RSAF is gunning for much heavier tactical transports, just as how the helicopter fleet is growing heavier with a bigger proportion of Chinooks.
To my mind the only two real candidates are the A400M and the C-2, but each brings their quirks. The A400M has been suffering from a decade-long teething problem with its fancy gearboxes, while the C-2 uses familiar commercial turbofans and makes extensive use of COTS components. However, the C-2 is a jet, making it more vulnerable to FOD and possibly not slow enough to tank up the helicopter fleet, and most of all, it is Japanese. Both have comparable STOL performance, unit cost, payload and cruise speed. Crucially, both can land one combat loaded and armoured Bionix, Terrex, or Hunter, onto a short airstrip or dirt field.
Hi retortPouch [at October 31, 2020 at 4:47 PM]
Yes supporters of the Tiger never highlight the absence of Australian Tigers during 10+ years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I understand Australian forces, instead, had to rely on the attack helicopters of their allies eg. Dutch Apaches in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Netherlands
To interact with US forces and to use the US’s highly developed logistic/spare and upgrade systems Australia should have bought US Apaches or Vipers and should do so in future.
Indeed Singapore is too small and too close to overwhelming Chinese forces in Southeast Asia and in the SCS to formally add itself to the Quad. Instead Singapore might occasionally send a vessel to the Malabar and other multilateral and bilateral exercises. For example Singapore sent a frigate to Malabar 2007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malabar_(naval_exercise)#2007
I don’t know what Singapore, as a small, island nation, would do with heavy transport aircraft? The problem plagued A400M has caused grief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas#Delays_and_problems and to be the first and maybe only foreign buyer of Japan’s C-2 may be risky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2
Japan’s lack of experience in selling complex weapon systems was a major reason why Australia didn’t buy Japanese submarines.
Better to buy a new model of the mature, widely used by Singapore and allies (US, Australia, NZ) Hercules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules#Operators
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment