Does anyone here have any for-public-consumption references that show the cost of basing RSAF assets in the US?

For example, F-16.net states the following:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article17.html

Were the services given as aid, or did it cost you?

Pretty sure it didn't cost us.

http://qesdb.usaid.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?...ge.sas&x=21&y=7

We haven't received military aid since the 60s if that's an accurate source.

Edited.

What we need from the US is long-term access to bases for training. We pay the US for the RSAF to use their facilities. No handouts. What we want is access to appropriate US technology that we purchase, so that we may customize our own solutions. We don't believe in asking for US aid nor do we require it.

BTW, after Hurricane Katrina our Chinooks who were training in the US were used to repair the levees that failed. The US also does not pay SG or need to give SG aid to make use Changi Naval Base, which we have developed (at no charge to them) to enable the docking of US aircraft carriers. We try to contribute forces and $ to US efforts (but of course on a very small scale) - be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or pirate hunting in the Gulf of Aden (as part of CTF-151).

We do have a few active defense related R&D projects with the US. The US does co-fund some of the research done by Singaporeans as they feel our research is promising and they want access to our technology should something viable come out of our efforts.

Any information on how much it costs to base RSAF assets in the US?

^^Take a look at this US$200 m FMS report for munitions and training with regards to the F-15SGs but there's no break down on RSAF's US training and basing costs (as a separate line item) that I've seen so far. Some of the other forum members may know more or have a more accurate picture. I'll have to see what the others say.

found this from the lockheed martin site.

this is the appedix file for peace carvin IV :

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/6707.pdf

think LM is bound contractually to not reveal cost of the peace carvin program. seems to be a state secret/only to individuals on a need to know/need to be aware basis if i understand the legalese correctly.

also noticed this in the above PDF. im not too familiar with aircraft, so does this mean we have legal rights to the source code of the F-16 ?

Good morning, Grunt,

I'm surprised we do not charge the USN for docking its naval assets at CNB for its port visits here. May I ask, where did you get the source from?

Regards

I think grunt is right.

Rand makes reference to the provision of no-cost facilities.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports...MR1315.appc.pdf

As we know, facilities are provided under the 2005 strategic framework agreement which can be accessed here (and doesn't have a "charging" provision). This includes the offices at Paya Lebar and CNB berths.

http://www.us-asean.org/DefSec/SFA.doc

http://www.odc.org.sg/training.htm

However, I do think that things like fuel, transport of personnel are still borne by the USN/USAF.

Singapore has gotten IMET funding before.
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair44/m44c3.html

I'm too lazy to search but if I'm not wrong, IMET funding details are available on FAS.

Dear f14dtomcat,

Sorry about the earlier abbreviated response that may be subject to misinterpretation. A few points of order are necessary:

1. The USN does not maintain a 'base' in Singapore (Singapore is still part of the Non-aligned Movement). So technically, the USN can't pay for a 'base' in Singapore because their presence is not treated as a base. Rather, the USN's 7th Fleet maintains a logistics presence in Singapore and we host the 7th Fleet Logistics Force commander in Singapore (currently Rear Adm. Nora Tyson) - who is called Commander, Logistics Group Western Pacific (COMLOG WESTPAC). For more details from a US perspective, see here.

2. The 13 November 1990 MOU (and subsequently amended to provide access to CNB) signed by Vice President Quayle and Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew does not impose 'legal' obligations, it merely provides a framework to enable the US to remain engaged and forward deployed in Southeast Asia. Further, the MOU also allows the US access to Singapore facilities at Paya Lebar Airport.

3. COMLOG WESTPAC is the U.S. 7th Fleet's principal logistics agent and bilateral exercise coordinator for Southeast Asia. As logistics agent for 7th Fleet, COMLOG WESTPAC plans the resupply of food, ordnance, fuel and repair parts for U.S. Navy ships deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations. COMLOG WESTPAC also plans and manages the funding for ship repairs at U.S. facilities in Guam, as well as at commercial repair facilities in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia. The Singapore economy benefits from this arrangement (but I don't think the Singapore Government derives a significant 'direct financial benefit' from the logistic presence). Certain USN entitles may actually pay commercial entities rent for their office space, for example NCIS, who maintains a Singapore Field Office. More USN info here.

4. COMLOG WESTPAC acting as logistics agent for the 7th Fleet pays all necessary expenses and charges incurred - this would include fuel and other onshore services. So technically, the USN may pay some minor fees of some sort but they don't pay for a base or the privilege of docking at CNB.

5. This is in contrast to the US arrangement with:

(i) Kyrgyzstan, where the US agreed to pay more to Kyrgyzstan for the use of the Manas air base. In that case, the United States agreed to pay $60 million a year to use the base, up from $17.4 million under the previous arrangement. More news details here.

OR

(ii) Japan, where the Japan provides part of the cost of the forward deployment of US forces in Okinawa and throughout Japan, through an annual burden-sharing payment. This Japanese Government actually pays the US part of the cost of US to station troops there.

From the points of order above, it should be clear that I don't need to answer your question.

P.S. weasel1962 thanks for your response and links.

The moment they give Singapore an 'irrevocable license', it means, it is US owned source code (i.e. they are not forsaking their IP rights). This clause seems to give DSTA authority (contracting on behalf of the RSAF/SG Govt) some 'rights' of software modification (i.e. we don't have to pay Lockheed Martin or some US coy to 'maintain' or do other things to our planes). I believe this is not 'common language' compared to some other FMS sales - which is why there is some US concern about their sales to SG - but they really don't have a choice. If they don't give DSTA this clause, DSTA would not have recommended the continued with purchase of US planes. The potential threat of not buying US gear is credible the moment we established a training base in France and the French are ready and willing to step into US shoes.

Since we're on the issue, rsaf F-16 training to continue at Springfield, USA - home of homer simpson.

US$75m for training at ANG base at Springfield
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/200...apore_09-51.pdf

US$275m for logistics
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/200...apore_09-50.pdf

If the Aussies don't set up their F-35 training centre or if RSAF acquires F-35B or Cs, then the training centre will be at Eglin.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_r...l-training.html

"The center features a full mission simulator that will be networked to other trainers on site, enabling formation flying and virtual war gaming."

"F-35 pilots will have the use of portable laptop trainers that they can check out and take home. The trainers include a stick and throttle and helmet-display glasses, along with a realistic F-35 panoramic cockpit display, voice command and Internet connectivity for multi-ship formations."

Nothing like playing computer games at home and be treated as doing OT work....

It would also be nice to see F-35s practice formation take-offs and landings like the F-5 and F-16s and multi-formation training. Force multipliers....

Just nice.

from AirForces monthly September 2009

Assuming he doesn't have a predilection for a certain energy drink, I can see why Col. Granger is called Red Bull...

Great read, BTW

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ang gu sure adds a badass tone to it as well :ph43r:

yup, I have to admit it really was an interesting read, wonder what the one for the 428th will be like? B)

Nice Hokkien nickname, probably the first in USAF. :lol:

I wonder if they have that Viper image as a wallpaper.. it'll be nice to have one.

Doh, I think I have spent too much time out of the country. I couldn't figure out what "Ang Gu" meant.

*faint* see viper52's post for a hint :ph43r:

hmm, did ang gu come from the fact that he's ang moh? :P

Theres actually quite a few "Springfields" in the US. I think the one in the pdf document is actually in Ohio. I've personally been to Springfield in Illinois and heard of another one Massachusetts. I'm under the impression there are at about 4 of them...

Homer Simpson's Springfield was a fictitious location though.

:P

What I meant was I couldn't tell until I read Viper's post.

:lol:

interesting. they arent fitted with CFT while under training in the US ? the ones that took part in the emergency runway exercise recently had CFTs right ?

Interesting read!

Let's hope they (AFM) will do likewise on the 428 'Buccaneers' too. :P

This unit is pretty rich in history esp when it was a F-111-equiped unit while it was a USAF outfit and was subsequently dis-established until resurrected to be a RSAF Viper unit attached at Canon AFB.

And now is re-attached as a F-15SG unit at Mountain Home AFB.

The US-based aircraft are Block 52s, not configured to carry CFTs. Similar to the Tengah based birds.

The ones from Torrent are Block 52+ models.

LazerLordz, try contacting John Dibbs, the photographer.

:wub: *take queue number*


please ask for wide screen 1680×1050 ;@)

SAF to conduct most complex exercise to date. Forging Sabre II.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin...1018604/1/.html

Death of Regular RSAF Personnel in US

Condolences..

RIP comrade...