Drone is the future of close air support

Apache, tiger and other attack helicopter are outdated. They are costly, hard to maintain and easily brought down by cheaper anti-air missile or sometime even hand-held launchers.

As the technology improves on radio frequency and other transmitting signals and guidance system, we should explore more on drone usage to cover more duties such as close air support to ground. 

With the same armament configuration but with less load without equipments supporting the pilots thus increase loitering time while using same load of fuel. 

Attack helicopter should be removed from service and replace by drone attack helicopter. Not only you can save money on training pilots, you get less casualties and what you need is to provide more hardware than actual trained pilots. 

Of course, there are some roles where it still need trained pilots and personnel like search and rescue missions. Best to be able to couple with some mini drones for wider range of search.

So please Singapore armed force. We need to exploited the expertise on the newer generation as sitting behind the control console is like playing game to them. They maybe weaker mentally compared to the past generation but their tech savvy is definitely one of the top rate in the world. 

Hope the navy will consider building jmms that can operate F35B together with drones for  in-flight refuelling, awacs, anti-submarine, anti surface missions.

Ultimately, I strongly suggest we boost our capabilities in drone usage in all fields of our military on land, sea and air. To be true to the philosophy of being a lean and mean force to be reckon with.

Need to tap on the brain

I have a feeling that our brain/soul can tap/synchronise on the frequency or essence of life  if we train our senses to the next level. Maybe thesixth sense develop through focus training on our mind/sense/body. The only problem is how to train? If we could tap/engage the essence of life on the Earth, can we also tap on the universe too? I believe in God. He created everything. There's must be some link that we can link up with. 

poor and rich

When a country is extremely poor(economic poor) , the people eat will eat a lot of stable food (eg, rice, bread etc) to fill up the hunger.

But when the country turn into extremely rich, the lower status people will turn to the main staple food (big portion) cause everything else is so expensive.

So what's the difference between rich and poor country? Leave aside politic, just plainly the lower status of people. 

Poor country,                           1. high crime rate,                 2. unstable income thus unstable food income, shelter and other basic necessities like water and electricity.                             3.Bad health care. 

Rich country,                             1.stress of paying bills (all kind of bills).                               2.time used for work is more than personal and sleep.                                           3.human relationship (relatives or friends) weighs more with money than loyalty, friendship or family.   4.medical is too high cost for those who need of higher treatment. Cheaper ones will have to wait and by that time, most probably you are a goner.                                       5.society will be too expensive to take care elderly if the elderly do not save enough for retirement. Becoming a burden to the next generation.                         6.low birth rate cause everything is too expensive and those who can afford to live a better life do not want their lifestyle to be change or most probably, they only make 1 baby to fulfil the parent role.

On this tiny red dot called Singapore, the old guards did a great job. But the coming new generations, they are generating a gap and that gap is getting out of hand with no controlling of whatsoever except giving out handouts of little money. Inflation is rising fast amid the covid crisis, jobs are filled by competitive outsiders. For those who are middle and higher income earners, they does not seems to be bother and won't not care less.

To summarise my view, I think we need to balance between our country economy and at the same time, maintain an affordable, livable society. We cannot keep going to score the KPI on improving the GDP and keep stretching the people to work harder, longer and put on a achievement smile of when you only stay in a box size house (HDB or condo) or own a car that you fret everytime petrol price increase

Multi purpose nuclear submarine

Singapore definitely need to find new reliable power source if she is to continue to grow.

Been thinking a lot and thought of having a multi purpose nuclear aircraft carrier to help providing nuclear energy to the island while keeping the reactor mobile and also maintaining an "airbase" status when Paya Lebar is close down.

However, after much though, I think it's more important to have a reliable and safe source of energy than having an airbase.

If Singapore could buy or co-develop a nuclear submarine which is for civilian use only which can help to power part of the island while having a safety distance away from cities would be a better option. The cost surely will be enormously gigantic scale and even more on maintenance. But we have no choice as we need more power to generate our economy and many more.

Having a nuclear submersible powerstation seems like viable option.

It's not affect by typhoon nor earthquake except maybe the underwater powerlines maybe damage during earthquakes.

Nuclear reactors are getting smaller and we quite have a reasonable size power station out of the danger zone of a nuclear holocaust.

Instead of purchasing energy from other countries, which I seriously doubt our neighbours are willing to see Singapore thriving better than them, we could have a more secure power source. 

We need more electricity for future

We should be seriously looking for new energy source beside relying on fossil fuel.

I've been thinking a lot and I can only think of nuclear is the only option we have to fill in stop gap before we can find another means of having finding one.

Of course safety is the number concern. International rules to abide too. We can't build a nuclear plant in Singapore. Too dangerous to Singapore and surrounding countries. We could however build not 1 but 2 nuclear ships to supplement our needs.

I would suggest a class of ship that act both as a air aircraft carrier as well as a nuclear power plant for the west side of Singapore industrial estate and residential area for a start.

Removing some facilities from Tuas area and build a transiting power plant to connect the nuclear powered ship to onshore transiting power plant.

The nuclear powered plant ships will be rotated for safety inspections as well as conducting training exercise for our airforce in open seas or ocean.

Of course, where to station the future powered ship for energy may not be at Tuas. Can be at changi too. So long the nuclear powered ship is able to leave quickly to a safe distance.

Risk is high for using nuclear energy and the cost of initial building and planning will be enormous. However, without a guaranteed power source, Singapore will be at her knees.

Having mobile nuclear energy is the only option I think we can guarantee power source and at the same time freeing up space in Singapore land for non military purposes.

Nuclear power plant ship

We should seriously consider building a "nuclear powered" ship. If we were to shut down Paya Lebar airbase, we should get the best benefit of it.

We can build an multi-purpose aircraft carrier. It shall be designed to be powered by nuclear power and the power should be distribute to mainland. Since we can't build a nuclear power plant, we could get ourself 1 or 2 nuclear powered ship to solve our energy problem.

Not only we can solve the energy problem, we also get ourself a platform to replace Paya Lebar airbase

Time to change our F16s

If the Mig 21 of India can down a F16 of the Pakistan airforce which India claimed, I think it's really high time to change our F16s.

As a lightweight multirole aircraft plane, the F16s of today is not getting her value back like the old days.

Current models are not cheap with all the upgrades that's going on. Maintenance and operational flight hour cost is piling up. Why are we still having the F16s when she had already lost her primary role as a cheap and good plane?

I strongly suggested we get the Gripen. We could customised the Gripen to our needs which I think the Swedish maker would be gladly obliged. They are willingly to let the Brazilian have the technology transfer, so I think with a certain amount of orders, we could actually customised the Gripens.

F35s is a good plane. No doubt about it. But I believed it's only suited as a role of force multiplier. Low speed, low payload and high cost for being stealthy, doesn't add up to be a good replacement for a lightweight workhorse like our F16s. However, we still need them to link our forces and make our war effort more efficient. Very good plane to deep strike enemy's top valued target like power stations, oil and gas facilities, anti-air facilities etc. However, we do not need the amount that is going to replace our F16s.

We have the F15SGs for deep strike, air superiority or maybe as an missile carrier in the future either for A2A role or anti-ship mission. The F15SGs with her twin engines are heavy fuel drinkers. Cost per plane is over 100+millions. That's a lot of money for a airframe design in the 70s!

I strongly believed that to be a workhorse plane for our tiny nation, we need a lightweight multirole plane, should be of ease of maintenance, reasonable low cost per plane, low operating cost, high turnaround rate even at countryside.

With the Gripen in the inventory, we could mix our A2A missile with the European arsenal like  "Meteor" replacing AIM120. If there's a war broke out and our US ally is being block out from supplying us the missiles, our planes will be sitting ducks on the field.

Look