The narrative in Sg is there this may be a massive mixed buy of both A and B models - similar to Japan. Technically, RSAF has not replaced its 49-50 F5 S/Ts which the F35As could end up replacing.
The 40 to 60+ F15SGs replaced some or all of the Super Skyhawks. The F35Bs will replace the 70+ F16Vs as planned.

RSAF fighter replacements

Super Skyhawks -> replaced by 4.5+ gen F15SGs -> to be upgraded (midlife) and then replaced by a 6th gen fighter post 2040
F16s C/D/D+ -> upgraded (midlife) to F16V standard -> replaced by F35B
F5 S/T -> ? (likely F35As)

F-35 Fleet Is Grounded by US Air Force Over Ejection-Seat Worries

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/202...on-seat-worries

tanks are obsolete and can be easily destroyed by drone bombs .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI5ABZPw9Us

The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) is considering to co-locate its current Lockheed Martin F-16C/D multirole combat aircraft detachment at Luke Air Force Base (AFB) in Phoenix, Arizona, with its future Lockheed F-35 stealth fighters at a long-term training centre, United States officials have revealed.

Arkansas senator Tom Cotton said in a 20 July statement that Fort Smith Airport in Indiana has been selected as one of five possible sites to host the RSAF’s F-16 and F-35 aircraft, noting that Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett had earlier signed a 6 July memorandum to establish a permanent Foreign Military Sales (FMS) training centre at a single location for 24 to 36 F-35 aircraft and F-16 basing.

Besides Fort Smith Airport, other sites that have been shortlisted include Hulman Field, Buckley AFB in Colorado, Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas, and Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan.

“Fort Smith is a strong candidate for Singapore’s F-16 squadron and future F-35 aircraft,� Senator Cotton said.

“The United States deeply values our relationship with Singapore, and I appreciate Secretary Barrett’s consideration of Arkansas as a location for our important defence partnership,� he added. “I look forward to working with the Air Force and the state of Arkansas to ensure that Fort Smith is a welcome location for this vital new national security mission.�

No timelines were given for the selection process.

Singapore’s F-35 acquisition details – more aircraft hinted?

It is worth noting that Senator Cotton’s statement revealed a potential Singaporean F-35 fleet size of between 24 and 36 F-35 at the future training centre, when the island state has thus far only indicated an interest in up to 12 aircraft.

On 9 January 2020, the US State Department approved a potential US$2.75 billion FMS sale of Lockheed Martin F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) stealth fighters as well as associated spare parts, logistics, and training support to Singapore.

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) noted that the Singaporean government had requested an initial batch of four F-35B STOVL aircraft with the option to acquire an additional eight, with the proposed sale also provisioning for up to 13 Pratt & Whitney F135 engines including one initial spare, undisclosed electronic warfare, communications, and navigation systems, the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) maintenance and logistics planning suite, software development and integration, and training equipment.

The F-35B platform brings a brand new STOVL capability for the RSAF, which have never operated such types of aircraft since it was stood up in September 1968 as the Singapore Air Defence Command (SADC). Singapore would be the fourth Asia Pacific country – and the first in Southeast Asia – to operate the F-35 after Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

Current US-based RSAF training activities
The RSAF presently maintains four training detachments in the continental United States, with Boeing AH-64D Apache attack helicopters from the Peace Vanguard detachment at Silverbell Army Heliport in Marana, Arizona, and Boeing F-15SG multirole combat aircraft at Peace Carvin V at Mountain Home Air Base in Idaho. The service previously maintained Boeing CH-47D heavy-lift helicopters at the Peace Prairie detachment at Grand Prairie Army Aviation Support Facility in Texas, before relocating the helicopters to the Australian Army Aviation Training Centre at Oakey, Queensland in mid-2018.

Singapore also signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States on 7 December 2019 to establish a new combat aircraft training detachment at Andersen AFB on the US island territory of Guam in the western Pacific Ocean.

The MOU lays out the framework for the RSAF¼s future detachment in Guam, covering the deployment of the service¼s F-15SG and F-16 fighter aircraft and other assets such as the Gulfstream 550 airborne early warning aircraft for training.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) said the detachment will be stood up around 2029 and will initially comprise a squadron of aircraft and support personnel, as well as associated infrastructure such as hangars, aprons, and ancillary facilities.

Dump Msias 48 tanks then.

Every weapon needs to be used in a certain way. Tanks are employed with proper tactics and do not operate in silo fashion.

By tbe way, most modern western tanks have thicker armour and youd need a proper atgm to kill them.

unpopular opinion: modern ATGM mostly outclassed modern tanks, be it western or asian etc

like you said, its all down to how its used. knowing the ins and outs of ATGM warfare is extremely important for tankers to avoid being under crosshairs

Actually, the "West" are increasing their tank holdings. Not reducing.

Yes. Tactics matter a lot. But you will draw a different conclusion of tanks versus atgms when you compare western tanks to eastern ones.

Rule of thumb: Avoid anything Russian pls.

this sounds superficial at best

even modern western tanks with shoddy tactics are shown to be blasted to bits (see Turkey Leopards, Saudi Arabia M1A2s)
inb4 export model weaker excuse

No it is not. Russia has lost 2000 tanks since the war began a couple of months ago.

This attrition rate has not been suffered by any army within the same span of time since perhaps ww2.

I am saying that tactics matter. But the maker of the tank matters too.

sure they did but remember who are arming the opposition. it is only logical they will take out Russian obsolete tanks with much modern ATGM systems

try arming Iraq in 2000 with modern ATGMs and see how the US tanks will fare during Gulf War. they sure as hell will take on more tank casualties

The iraqis also had atgms e.g. kornets. The allies never suffered the losses Russia did.

And what obsolete Russian tanks?  Russis T90s, 80s, 72s, etc. Modern tanks by Russian definition.

yes and the coalition force never set their tanks right into kornet's crosshairs based on the tactics they employed right? they are much smarter than that to do something as foolish to pit ATGM vs tanks directly

the rule has always been simple, ATGM > MBTs. only tactics in how they utilise MBT kept them alive against ATGMs. not the tanks "superior armor". tanks can at most shrug off 1st hit and keep crew alive but the tank is already crippled and useless

this aint WW2 era anymore, ATGMs outpaced tanks armor long ago. APS is the next level thing that is keeping MBTs even more relevant into today

Coalition tanks were just as susceptible to atgms when their escorts e.g. infantry were depleted.

Rubbish! It is not as simple as x versus y. The type of atgm, location of atgm strike, angle of attack, types of armour e.g. latest ceramic, chobham, depleted uranium, etc. all matter. And what makes you think a first strike can cripple a tank all the time? Presumptous!

My point is that western tanks are better built. Add to to tactics and youve got a formidable thrusting force.

despite all these variables, the first hit itself mostly already damage the optics, sensors and whatnot on the tank's external and partially the internals. the crew and innards mostly intact but without external optics, sensors etc theyre as good as blindfolded. i was watching a simulation on tank shells onto even modern tanks, a simple basic AP round itself while have no chance of penetrating western tanks armor from front, the kinetic impact is strong enough to render crew concussed and damage to systems, crippling the tank.

imagine a situation like this. you and your tank crew are moving from post A to post B, suddenly a tank round/ATGM hits you. everything went dark, sensors kaput, optics cant see externally anymore and suddenly tank halts because the driver is incapacitated or tracks broken. what do you do? exit tank to be ambushed or stay inside and await the inevitable 2nd round that could potentially rip the internals? you get the gist

no doubt abt this, but my point is ATGM are outpacing the western tanks even more. ATGMs are designed to destroy tanks, obviously they have the advantage considering the tanks are much more limited by weight and sizing. no point building an indestructible tank to only be crippled by it being too heavy or immobile for use