RSAF Video from their Facebook page. Gives a brief look at the last 50 years and shows the Aster 30 SAM that they have acquired.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
SAF acquires new fighting machines to do more with less, will reveal replacement for F-16 fighter jets soon
Singapore is clossing in on the F-16 replacement. Potentially one of the biggest or even the biggest Air Force defence project in South East Asia on next decade.
Singapore is clossing in on the F-16 replacement. Potentially one of the biggest or even the biggest Air Force defence project in South East Asia on next decade.
Joe Black
Active Member
It is likely that Singapore is finally about to order F-35Bs, The last of the F-5S/Ts will be retiring, and continuing the practice of having 3 different types of fighter jets in its ORBAT, RSAF will definitely start to look into the F-35Bs sooner rather than later.
The F-16 Blk 52+ C/Ds will progressively be upgraded to the V standard, so the reason taunted by Ng Eng Hen is to explain why Singapore needs a new fighter type given that the fleet of the Vipers and Eagles are still relatively young.
Singapore to announce F-16 fighter jet replacement plans in few months
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
FORBIN
Member
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Singapore to buy 4 F-35 fighter jets with option for 8 more; price comparable to F-15SG
Singapore looking for 4 F-35 with 8 option tender offering. Interestingly Singapore also begin their F-16 procurement with small batch of 8 F-16 A/B Blk 15, before gradually come to present 60 F-16 Blk 50.
Thus seems gradually procurement will still being pursue on this F-35
Singapore looking for 4 F-35 with 8 option tender offering. Interestingly Singapore also begin their F-16 procurement with small batch of 8 F-16 A/B Blk 15, before gradually come to present 60 F-16 Blk 50.
Thus seems gradually procurement will still being pursue on this F-35
Thanks for updating this thread and agreed on a pattern of creeping incremental purchases for the F-35 (likely to be the B). This is a post 3G SAF purchase or NEXT GEN SAF plan.
While Mindef and defmin have shared a slide of Singapore’s planned military equipment for “2030 and beyond,” where the F-35 and F-15SG were the only two fixed wing fighters displayed, it is unclear on the planned replacements for the C-130 tactical transport and Fokker 50 maritime patrol aircraft. Singapore has 10 C-130s in service – five C-130Hs & five KC-130 tankers – with an average age of 45.8 years. Our five Fokker 50 MPAs have an average age of 24.6 years, and its four Fokker 50 transports are on average 25.8 years old. It would be interesting to speculate on plans for both transport and maritime patrol fleets, but both will increasingly face obsolescence.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
OPSSG, it's interesting to me that Dr Ng put the range of USD 90 mio to USD 115 mio of F-35 procurement cost. 90 mio if not mistaken is A cost and 115 is B cost.
Is Singapore wants to procure both A and B just like Japan do ? or just B as so far the Media told that's where Singapore interest is.
Is Singapore wants to procure both A and B just like Japan do ? or just B as so far the Media told that's where Singapore interest is.
I would prefer B only purchase - not sure what the SG Government would do in the end. That way the 6 A330 MRTTs can focus on supporting F-15SGs and other aircraft during a conflict. We need all the tankers up and flying to support the required air tasking - to service the number of targets we need to hit with each wave of strike aircraft. With Bs, an enemy can’t hope to shut down the Republic of Singapore Air Force through even an air field denial exercise. Too many basketball courts - which can serve as landings spots (for vertical landing).
Let me share what I posted years ago in another thread.
My preference is not to have a mixed fleet of As and Bs for the F-35s, as we are only replacing 3 squadrons of F-16s, if price is not the only concern.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I think the idea of operating the F35Bs off the Freeways would be a good way to go for Singapore. Not just using them as Runways for the Aircraft but also the Ground Crews can use them to rapidly deploy Fuel Tankers, Ammo and Supply Vehicles.
Joe Black
Active Member
The F-35 photo used by Mindef on their Facebook page (Ministry of Defence, Singapore (MINDEF)) depicted an F-35A.
Whilst it does not mean the order for the 4+8 F-35 is definitely the A variant, I think DefMin Dr Ng Eng Hen's comment about the proximity of the price of one is close to that of the F-35, I think this comment is strongly suggesting that it would be the A variant, which currently is running just under US$90mil. Estimated cost of the F-15SG (2009 money) was roughly round US$79mil (ref: CO09047 | F-15SG: The Last Manned Fighter for the RSAF? | RSIS)
Whilst it does not mean the order for the 4+8 F-35 is definitely the A variant, I think DefMin Dr Ng Eng Hen's comment about the proximity of the price of one is close to that of the F-35, I think this comment is strongly suggesting that it would be the A variant, which currently is running just under US$90mil. Estimated cost of the F-15SG (2009 money) was roughly round US$79mil (ref: CO09047 | F-15SG: The Last Manned Fighter for the RSAF? | RSIS)
By way of clarification, I don’t know if Singapore will buy the A or B. But if MINDEF releases pictures of A, and mentions that a LOA will be signed for 4x F-35s (with an option for 8 more), I would assume it’s a buy of 4 F-35As at this moment.
RSAF conducts Ex Torrent at regular intervals and at the last one held in 2016, they operated both F-16s and F-15SGs on a freeway. Singapore will be able to operate the F-35A or F-35B off these roads that are designated as alternate runways. Given that Singapore’s interest in the F-35B is to reduce the RSAF’s need for long runways to generate airpower, it would further add to the need for the RSAF to assess the variant’s capabilities in such scenarios. That Singapore has also asked for information on the other variants of the F-35, the Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) F-35A and the F-35C for the US Navy’s aircraft carriers, also suggests that MINDEF is cognisant of some of the trade-offs designers have had to make for the F-35B in exchange for its STOVL capability, which enables an F-35B loaded with weapons and fuel to take off from a runway as short as 183m according to its official design requirements.
A little know fact is that some years ago, the RSAF evaluated operating STOVL aircraft in the form of the Harrier and decided against such an investment. Not sure if such logic would apply to the B - in view of the RSAF’s improved capability to intercept limited rocket attacks on our air bases or key installations. What most outsiders don’t realise is that there is Inter-Services rivalry in the SAF and I am sure that for a given ‘x’ dollar budget, the RSAF would prefer to acquire the A, whereas the Army and Navy would push for a B, especially with the future JMMS being specified for the Navy. I suspect the Air Force will resist acting or advocating the Navy’s interest from a funds allocation perspective (trade-offs vs core mission sets). Case in point is the purchase of 8 Seahawks, when it is obvious that the Navy needs at least 16 Seahawks.
Kiwigov
Member
Apparently NZ and Singapore now have an enhanced partnership agreement, including on Defence (see the MFAT website).
"Defence cooperation
New Zealand and Singapore’s defence agencies have established an annual Defence Ministers meeting and regular dialogues between our services. They will also explore opportunities for further skills development and reciprocal secondments through the following agreements:
Wonder if this will positively affect the proposal to base a squadron of RSAF F-16s at Ohakea?
"Defence cooperation
New Zealand and Singapore’s defence agencies have established an annual Defence Ministers meeting and regular dialogues between our services. They will also explore opportunities for further skills development and reciprocal secondments through the following agreements:
- Technical aspects of safety and security - Agreement between New Zealand’s Institute for Environmental, Science and Research Limited and Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs.
- Cooperation in Homeland Security Technology - Agreement between the Defence Technology Agency and Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs"
Wonder if this will positively affect the proposal to base a squadron of RSAF F-16s at Ohakea?
Cabinet documents on the proposal to base Singaporean F-15s at Ohakea have been released. Haven't read them yet.
Singapore Proposal to Base F-15 Fighter Jets at Ohakea Base – 2018 Cabinet Documents
Singapore Proposal to Base F-15 Fighter Jets at Ohakea Base – 2018 Cabinet Documents
milliGal
Member
I had a read and it seems like their decision was reasonable.
To summarise:
They concluded it would be a big plus on strategic/foreign policy grounds, and would have limited economic and tactical benefits (more opportunities for the army/navy to train with fast jets).
It would have required a runway extension, the purchase of several properties due to unreasonable noise levels, significant investment in noise insulation on base and in the surrounding town, and increased pollution from noise, fuel burn, munitions and countermeasures. There were also reservations in the NZDF regarding the challenges of operating fast jets and slower training/rotary wing aircraft from the same base, and concerns that the limited development real estate at NZ's major airbase would be taken up.
It sounds like short terms visits from Singaporean F-16's at least will continue, and options for development of a more permanent base for them elsewhere (i.e. Waiouru) considered. I wouldn't hold my breath on that front though.
If you don’t mind, let me share a frank perspective.
There are tactical benefits for the navy, as F-15SG is configured for maritime strike to compliment the search area of a MPA. To fly low level and to pop-up for strike (which will compliment NZDF’s P-8s). This is deliberately omitted in the papers. When they talk about foreign certification, it’s for SAS certification but they omit the benefit of training for joint fires by normal FOs, which is being done for our army. It’s what is omitted that we can spot easily.
It’s written to sell a point of view.
It’s an airport - more flights means more CO2 (the foot print of Changi and our skies are more crowded), which can be mitigated by purchase of local green credits. We can restrict use of flares if that is a concern (it’s just a little less realism in training). Do you drive? If you do, you have a carbon foot print.
But I recognise that there will be INCREASED costs for NZDF but the people in these forces will be closer. And if shooting starts in a mission, these peace time training relationships will be tested - we currently train in NZ with your guys before we deploy to Iraq and in the papers (just well hidden in a one liner, to ensure it’s not easily spotted by a layperson like me). Likewise for 6 years in Afghanistan and millions SAF spent supporting projects and missions there, along side NZDF.
Why? We want to train with NZDF and increased realism via close air support is good training value. NZDF defended us, when we as a country was much less capable of defending ourselves. We just want to give back and the local Mayors want this.
milliGal
Member
I don't think this decision should be interpreted in that light. The document specifically mentions that the decision will not negatively impact on our two countries "strong bilateral relationship" so I think it the decision was made in close consultation with Singaporean officials, and our relationship remains strong.
I personally would have loved to see fast jet's return to NZ skies, and I hope that alternative arrangements can be made. After reading the document I can understand why they made the decision they did though.
Just to make sure we are on the same wave length, I am speaking from a Singaporean perspective.
And of course, Singapore will respect and support your country’s decision - I think what we will see is ad hoc short term deployments of fast jets.
The F-15SG's would have complied with Manawatu District Plan which was tested in the Environment Court in December 2016 following the NZDF notifying Change 55.
The runway extension should be happening anyway due to the P-8A's requirements. So on one hand it is fine to utilise an operational Kiwi aircraft on a runway that needs another 300m in length to operate at a rarely required MTOW but now the opposite with respect to the F-15SG is used as an argument not too. Basically the GOTD does not want to spend the money to do that.
Furthermore the alleged crowding of the base is over-cooked. The Footprint of a air combat squadron is less than the previous base expansion proposal which was to essentially house 1 BDE at OH alongside air operations under the auspices of a NZDF Joint Base.
They also use the transfer of 3 Sqd to OH not generating huge gains as the baseline to argue that long term economic benefits wont be sustained post construction. I would say better than 3 Sqd what with 500 people permanently entering the community. The local government sector got a different viewpoint from their case studies regarding the local benefits to the economy.
Sound decibels - were within district plan limits. Sanson is a tiny village population 500 2km's south the Air Force has been close by for 80 years. If you don't want to live near a military base you should not have moved there. Fine sound proof the local school and some houses. We are talking about in effect just 8 aircraft on a normal flying day for a few minutes mostly around mid morning or afternoon - entering finals just north of the village for a few minutes if they followed the same TOAL pattern of the A-4's. $24m to sort the problem out including at OH itself.
Fuel trucks will need to bring in more fuel? A couple more tankers trucks a day going down SH1. Oh Please - and that is a drawback.
As for the lack air bases - what about WB - an airbase with a under utilised runway and available space that could quite happily have the T-6C's based there. OH is not a busy base even if flight movements doubled. Back in the 1970-1990's it coped with 55 aircraft and frequent overseas visitors on a regular basis. There are joint mil-civ bases world wide with a far greater range of aircraft types and daily movements that cope fine. I have visited JASDF, USMC and USAF bases they cope fine with a variety of aircraft with a far greater operational tempo.
As sharing airspace - just go back to the stricter NOTAM regime pre 2001. There are also still gazetted low flying zones in NZ. Notifying them again. It worked before when there were over 40 fast jets in the air and more aerial top dressing aircraft operating then now.
This was only ever about the fact that this was going to cost NZ a bit of money - money that the last government had set aside $1.7B to utilised within updated Defence infrastructure and was very keen to follow through with according to very senior people I have spoken too.
If we had a proper mature and normal approach to Defence we would be seizing on the opportunity to move back into multi-role fast air ourselves by partnering with Singapore as much as we could. At least on the establishment of infrastructure.
The canning of the project wont negatively set back the relationship but if it had gone ahead it would have certainly deepened it far more than the limited imaginations of the people who wrote, approved and released this report.
The runway extension should be happening anyway due to the P-8A's requirements. So on one hand it is fine to utilise an operational Kiwi aircraft on a runway that needs another 300m in length to operate at a rarely required MTOW but now the opposite with respect to the F-15SG is used as an argument not too. Basically the GOTD does not want to spend the money to do that.
Furthermore the alleged crowding of the base is over-cooked. The Footprint of a air combat squadron is less than the previous base expansion proposal which was to essentially house 1 BDE at OH alongside air operations under the auspices of a NZDF Joint Base.
They also use the transfer of 3 Sqd to OH not generating huge gains as the baseline to argue that long term economic benefits wont be sustained post construction. I would say better than 3 Sqd what with 500 people permanently entering the community. The local government sector got a different viewpoint from their case studies regarding the local benefits to the economy.
Sound decibels - were within district plan limits. Sanson is a tiny village population 500 2km's south the Air Force has been close by for 80 years. If you don't want to live near a military base you should not have moved there. Fine sound proof the local school and some houses. We are talking about in effect just 8 aircraft on a normal flying day for a few minutes mostly around mid morning or afternoon - entering finals just north of the village for a few minutes if they followed the same TOAL pattern of the A-4's. $24m to sort the problem out including at OH itself.
Fuel trucks will need to bring in more fuel? A couple more tankers trucks a day going down SH1. Oh Please - and that is a drawback.
As for the lack air bases - what about WB - an airbase with a under utilised runway and available space that could quite happily have the T-6C's based there. OH is not a busy base even if flight movements doubled. Back in the 1970-1990's it coped with 55 aircraft and frequent overseas visitors on a regular basis. There are joint mil-civ bases world wide with a far greater range of aircraft types and daily movements that cope fine. I have visited JASDF, USMC and USAF bases they cope fine with a variety of aircraft with a far greater operational tempo.
As sharing airspace - just go back to the stricter NOTAM regime pre 2001. There are also still gazetted low flying zones in NZ. Notifying them again. It worked before when there were over 40 fast jets in the air and more aerial top dressing aircraft operating then now.
This was only ever about the fact that this was going to cost NZ a bit of money - money that the last government had set aside $1.7B to utilised within updated Defence infrastructure and was very keen to follow through with according to very senior people I have spoken too.
If we had a proper mature and normal approach to Defence we would be seizing on the opportunity to move back into multi-role fast air ourselves by partnering with Singapore as much as we could. At least on the establishment of infrastructure.
The canning of the project wont negatively set back the relationship but if it had gone ahead it would have certainly deepened it far more than the limited imaginations of the people who wrote, approved and released this report.