Terrex vehicles arrived in Singapore: Mindef
Theforgottongeneration
Now that the Terrex are back in SG, we can examine the case with HK/China out of the equation. We need to ask why Mindef and NEH (as def minister) had allowed transportation of armored vehicles using commercial means instead of using our navy's LSTs.
The facts speak for the latter:
1. We have at least 4 Endurance class LSTs, specifically designed & build in SG to SPECIFICALLY transport tanks/armored vehicles from point to point.
2. Taiwan is about 3100km from SG. Our LSTs have a range of about 9100km, more than enough to make DIRECT trips to TW & back, sailing through INTERNATIONAL waters.
3. Each Endurance class ship can carry 15-18 tanks (depending on various sources). So our navy DOES have the capability to sealift heavy armored vehicles, despite NEH saying that we don't have capability & hence must use commercial firms to do so.
4. The LSTs has roll-on, roll-off capability of vehicles. Whereas using commercial container shipping means putting the armored vehicles on pallets/containers and therefore must embark/disembark only in ports with proper facilities. Using commercial ships are therefore less efficient operationally for military operations.
5. The LSTs are being maintained using public funds. So they should be used to meet the requirements of our nation first, including to support any training overseas.
6. Sailing in international waters, using our naval ships, would completely negate the need for "proper documents & permits", which NEH/Mindef keeps harping is the source of the dispute in this case.
7. Our LSTs are armed with 76mm gun, AA missiles, CIWS, and probably a detachment of soldiers too. So security against any hijacking attempts is very good, unless the Chinese sent their aircraft carrier.
8. Using our own naval ships, by-passing HK/Xiamen, SG can demonstrate that we fully respect China's One-China policy as commodities deemed as "strategic" to the Chinese will not enter their waters/ports.
The facts speak for the latter:
1. We have at least 4 Endurance class LSTs, specifically designed & build in SG to SPECIFICALLY transport tanks/armored vehicles from point to point.
2. Taiwan is about 3100km from SG. Our LSTs have a range of about 9100km, more than enough to make DIRECT trips to TW & back, sailing through INTERNATIONAL waters.
3. Each Endurance class ship can carry 15-18 tanks (depending on various sources). So our navy DOES have the capability to sealift heavy armored vehicles, despite NEH saying that we don't have capability & hence must use commercial firms to do so.
4. The LSTs has roll-on, roll-off capability of vehicles. Whereas using commercial container shipping means putting the armored vehicles on pallets/containers and therefore must embark/disembark only in ports with proper facilities. Using commercial ships are therefore less efficient operationally for military operations.
5. The LSTs are being maintained using public funds. So they should be used to meet the requirements of our nation first, including to support any training overseas.
6. Sailing in international waters, using our naval ships, would completely negate the need for "proper documents & permits", which NEH/Mindef keeps harping is the source of the dispute in this case.
7. Our LSTs are armed with 76mm gun, AA missiles, CIWS, and probably a detachment of soldiers too. So security against any hijacking attempts is very good, unless the Chinese sent their aircraft carrier.
8. Using our own naval ships, by-passing HK/Xiamen, SG can demonstrate that we fully respect China's One-China policy as commodities deemed as "strategic" to the Chinese will not enter their waters/ports.
ricky l
Assume additional 4 LSTs are used for transporting for overseas training - then more NSmen need to operate them - we are already running short of people - and have to outsource to commercial firms to run non-essential stuff.
Also got to spend multi-millions more just to procure 4 additional LSTs for training transport needs and maintaining them - does not make economical sense.
Commercial transportation is much more cost-effective.
Also got to spend multi-millions more just to procure 4 additional LSTs for training transport needs and maintaining them - does not make economical sense.
Commercial transportation is much more cost-effective.
ricky l
Thus more man can be deployed for operations whereas logistics, transport, area cleaning, food catering, etc that are non-operational essential are outsource to commercial --- so that more business activity for commercial, more cost-effective, soldiers are solely deployed for training and operations, military assets are solely used for operation and training - not logistics - effective used of military assets.
- 15 hours agoTheforgottongenerationUsing the LST to transport military vehicles whether to training bases, for relief missions, etc is the exact training & purpose for the LST crew for wartime conditions. Mindef just has to use a bit of brain to turn such into useful "operational needs".
There can never be a 'cost-effective' price on self-reliance and security - that is why NEH/Mindef screwed up with this Terrex case.
We have training bases all over world - how many transit ports to these bases have a similar "One-China" policy as HK that restrict the transshipment of strategic military material to another renegade country such that we need to use LSTs?
You mean we need to transport heavy armored vehicles to all the bases 365 days? We got that many armored vehicles, meh? BTW, many of the bases also DO NOT need heavy armored vehicles for their training and/or operational requirements.
If 4 LSTs are insufficient for whatever reasons you can think of, then it reflects the poor understanding of Mindef of our operational needs, doesn't it? In peacetime already cannot cope, in wartime, how? Start building only when the bullets start flying? Like that very cost effective indeed. - 15 hours agoTheforgottongenerationLST are called Landing Ship Tanks for a reason. For general logistics, the majority items being "non-strategic commodities" even by HK/China definition, these can be transported by commercial means.
- 3 hours ago
Keegan DIt is a common practice even among other countries to use commercial transporters for their logistics. You don't need to send 50 men on our LST to train for 2900km (to Taiwan), as 90% of the time they will be doing nothing except eat sleep and smell the sea. We do not have to train for 2900km as we are not preparing for this type of war. - 7 seconds agoricky lThe LST operates as helicopter carrier, tank carrier, troop carriers meant for operational needs and during peacetime for humanitarian and rescue operations.
It is also wired up with sensitive communications, closed weapon system and armed with missiles against sea and aerial threat.
It require up to 65 crews to operate.
So how can such military assets be deployed for logistics transportation?
- 38 seconds agoricky lHow can you rule out not using commercial freight and insist on using LST only? There could be many developments that will make it possible.
(1) MFA has get in touch with China MFA - understanding have been reached. In fact the PS MFA has a Ministry level with China Vice Minister MFA. In this coming Feb, there will be a Singapore-China high level meeting.
Something can be or may have been work out. So how can you rule out commercial freight cannot be used in future - must be LST - which will compromise our operational needs?
(2) Who knows Hainan island could be an option for us in future?
(3) Commercial freight can still be used by coming from Taiwan to Singapore at a slightly higher cost - unload our equipment and then go back to Hongkong and China to unload other commercial goods.
(4) More armor maybe bought for overseas training purposes and dispense the needs for transport.
Bear in mind, if our tanks or armor are being carried by aarmed LSTs - it will raise more suspicions from China - as a military maneouver - which may even attract more criticism - especially when it is a routine exercise.
Our troops also take commercial flight - and not use military transport plane for the same reasons.
Besides it is not cost effective to be transported by LSTs - for logistics transport.
Our LSTs are used to combat piracy, to storm beach for training exercise, for search and rescue operations in high sea with helicopter landing etc.
