Is the singapore navy that good....? Wats ur opinion
-
being frank ...i really find that the singapore navy is not really that efficent .....our ships are too small, our SAMs are too 'orbit',and even our surface to surface technology are not that good too.The navy is said too be the utimate defence force, ready to defeat any agressor,however looking at the technology....i dun think we are that powerful after all. My questions are.......can the mistral system able to defeat modern 3rd generation aircraft (especially the bugs use by our neighbours)....can the mistral system effectively defeat any sea skimming missiles?Noteing that indeed we have the barak system......how much do we have.....?We aqquired the harpoon missile but however through websites and books that i have seen......(if i am not wrong lah)......only the missile convette is armed with it...however two missile on each vessel.......can we really defeat our agressor in high sea....or have to rely all on our airforce to do the job.........? Jus a question by a 15 yr old.....pls share ur knowledge with mi.... . -
For the barak point defence system, we have 32 vertical launcher on each the newer la fayatte class frigate, 16 vertical launcher on each of the Victory class convette. The convette has 8 harpoon missiles la, not 2. The missile gun boat has 4 harpoon plus 2/4 gabriel. Don't know if they want to integrate barak on LST. Barak is a battle proven missile killer system and has no problem against exocet or harpoon, not to mention the "bugs", mig or su, unless they can out run a 40g pull vector trust missile.Originally posted by foxtrout8: being frank ...i really find that the singapore navy is not really that efficent .....our ships are too small, our SAMs are too 'orbit',and even our surface to surface technology are not that good too.The navy is said too be the utimate defence force, ready to defeat any agressor,however looking at the technology....i dun think we are that powerful after all. My questions are.......can the mistral system able to defeat modern 3rd generation aircraft (especially the bugs use by our neighbours)....can the mistral system effectively defeat any sea skimming missiles?Noteing that indeed we have the barak system......how much do we have.....?We aqquired the harpoon missile but however through websites and books that i have seen......(if i am not wrong lah)......only the missile convette is armed with it...however two missile on each vessel.......can we really defeat our agressor in high sea....or have to rely all on our airforce to do the job.........? Jus a question by a 15 yr old.....pls share ur knowledge with mi.... .
Mistral is only a temp solution for the missile gunboat and coastal patrol craft till they are phase out.
The only problem I see is the "tou-tow" Victory class convette, must fire that joker who recommend that f**kup antenna mast, which cause the ship to roll heavily in bad sea, in other word stability problem. I would suggest the Navy to replace that jokers' tower with a shorter one. -
however hor....i see all the pics of the missile convette onli 2 leh......the eight.....is offcially stated but no pictoral prove that i have seen
-
Its 8 harpoon lah....
Usually the navy... like that air force fighter planes dont carry max warload one....
this is because... weapons on carriage needs maintainace... thus adds to maintainance cost....
For example... if the falcon of the air force carry 4 sparrow and 4 sidewinder... at the end of a few month... those missiles may need to be replaced even if they are not fired because the intense shaking and rocking by the warplane causes the highly sensitive subsystems of the AAM to be affected... so they will need to be replaced... quite expensive for no real purpose right?
Likewise.. the navy cut cost by putting only 2 harpoon... and its a good indicator to our neighbour about our DEFCON... level.
at peace time... the navy carry 2 harpoon......
During tense time.. the navy may carry 4 harpoon....
Wartime or during navy parade... then maybe carry 8 harpoon...
There are photos of the navy corvette carrying 8 harpoon... u just didnt look hard enough.... -
lol icic......thx
-
besides the subs,i think they only have missile craft .....and etc..
they dont have any frigates yet....(they r getting the french frigates though...) -
malaysia's frigates capabilities.........they have 3 frigate under the class of Mark 1 Yarrow-type frigate , which is generally armed with a single 4.5 inch main gun, three 40/70 Bofors guns , MK 10 anti-submarine mortars and the Seacat missile for airdefence and exocet missile for anti surface warfare. The frigates are also upgraded with fire-control system, sonars, anti-missile countermeasures and air surveillance and surface search/navigation radars.
Now their convette capacity........ they aqquired the FS 1500 Type corvettes in 1984 , which have a range of 8,000 km at 18 knots and a displacement of 1,800 tonnes. The ships are armed with Exocet surface-to-surface missiles, one 100mm single gun, one 57 mm Bofors gun and four 30 mm Emerlec twin guns and anti-submarine weapons.
All the firepower is managed by a computerised fire control system. The corvettes are also equipped with the latest countermeasures like electronic warfare systems, radar and sonars to defend themselves.
Their capabillities impressive sia.........
Look at our navies current capacity......we are currently equid with six missile convette......facing the northers 3 frigate which is bigger in size ,range,and capability. our MCV are armed with a max of 8 harpoon anti surface missile, and 16 barak anti missile and anti aircraft missile....which is capable of countering any 3 generations anti ship missile and rumoured to be able to cripple enermy vessels.......together with that it is armed with six whitehead torps and commanded with advance C3I electronic devices. The ship is protected by high end electronic warfare device (a highly classified project by DSO) and decoy flares and chaff system. opps i forget about the oto melera gun station in the front capable of wacking land based target 90km aways or any aircraft or missiles flying close enough.
The next surface ship closest to the FS1500 is our missile gun boat....old but advance.....small but well equided.Armed with 4 harpoon system,2(if i am not wrong)gabriel missile system and one matra simbad mistral system. It is too protect by a range of jammers ,chaff decoy system.
This are the top two current offensve surface ship aqquired by the navys on both shores......However due to the complexity of the two navies i cant name all...........and i dun think i have the capability to do so.
Who do u think have an advantage over who? I mean currently.[/img] -
now here is a guy who doesnt deny the facts....
-
now here is a guy who doesnt deny the facts....
-
we have the advantage....Originally posted by foxtrout8:malaysia's frigates capabilities.........they have 3 frigate under the class of Mark 1 Yarrow-type frigate , which is generally armed with a single 4.5 inch main gun, three 40/70 Bofors guns , MK 10 anti-submarine mortars and the Seacat missile for airdefence and exocet missile for anti surface warfare. The frigates are also upgraded with fire-control system, sonars, anti-missile countermeasures and air surveillance and surface search/navigation radars.
Now their convette capacity........ they aqquired the FS 1500 Type corvettes in 1984 , which have a range of 8,000 km at 18 knots and a displacement of 1,800 tonnes. The ships are armed with Exocet surface-to-surface missiles, one 100mm single gun, one 57 mm Bofors gun and four 30 mm Emerlec twin guns and anti-submarine weapons.
All the firepower is managed by a computerised fire control system. The corvettes are also equipped with the latest countermeasures like electronic warfare systems, radar and sonars to defend themselves.
Their capabillities impressive sia.........
Look at our navies current capacity......we are currently equid with six missile convette......facing the northers 3 frigate which is bigger in size ,range,and capability. our MCV are armed with a max of 8 harpoon anti surface missile, and 16 barak anti missile and anti aircraft missile....which is capable of countering any 3 generations anti ship missile and rumoured to be able to cripple enermy vessels.......together with that it is armed with six whitehead torps and commanded with advance C3I electronic devices. The ship is protected by high end electronic warfare device (a highly classified project by DSO) and decoy flares and chaff system. opps i forget about the oto melera gun station in the front capable of wacking land based target 90km aways or any aircraft or missiles flying close enough.
The next surface ship closest to the FS1500 is our missile gun boat....old but advance.....small but well equided.Armed with 4 harpoon system,2(if i am not wrong)gabriel missile system and one matra simbad mistral system. It is too protect by a range of jammers ,chaff decoy system.
This are the top two current offensve surface ship aqquired by the navys on both shores......However due to the complexity of the two navies i cant name all...........and i dun think i have the capability to do so.
Who do u think have an advantage over who? I mean currently.[/img]
our advantage lies in the combine strength of our AWAC and MPA which can carry the AGM-84A... plus the navy corvettes and MGB that carries the BGM-84.
Other then the 2 malaysian lekiu class frigate that has seawolf AMM.. the other malaysian ships including frigate, corvettes and etc. dont have effective air defense and is nearly helpless against an ASM lauch from the sky....over 100km away...
in a battle scenario i would assume the following...
1.. the awac or the MPA detects enemy vessels far far away...
2. the corvettes and MGBs with their radar off would move silently into preset firing coordinates...
3.. once the enemy vessel is in range... the harpoons from both the ships and MPA would be fired simultaneously towards enemy fleet... in 2 waves of harpoon...
4. the MPA or the E2C will provide mid-course update to disguise the location of our firing platform..
5. Harpoon heads straight for enemy ship en mass...
6. malaysian navy reacts by launch seawolf... but because seawolf cannot do multiple fire and multiple intercept... the 2 lekiu frigate can only intercept 2 ASM harpoon at any one time within the 10km range limit of the lekiu frigate...
7. each harpoon is given its respective target and approaching for the pop-up...while malaysian ships attempt to use their guns to shoot down the missile..
8... malaysian ships gets overwhelmed by en mass harpoon... sunk one after the other...
9 the E2C and MPA checks for any surviving RMN ships that survive the first wave...and then guide the followup 2nd wave harpoon to finish off the stragglers...
10. final checks for surviving RMN ships... any survival will be dealt with gabriel and torpedo... any RMN ships still afloat by this time are probably badly damaged if not sinking slowly...
we wont even allow the RMN to use its exocet...
but assuming that RMN did manage to use its exocet... we will pair up the corvette with the MGB... to deal with the incoming exocet using the BARAK... Barak is capable of multiple intercept and mltiple targeting... thus for RMN to overwhelm RSN with exocet rush will take them all the ships they have..
BUT prior to defending itself against the exocet.. i expect the RSN to launch all its harpoon and gabriel and let the MPA or E2C do the rest while the ships try to defend itself using the barak and watever ECM and chaff system it got...
any counter argument??? -
is the matra simbad useful against sea skimming missiles... even though we are quite strong as a small nation......i really feel sad when i see .....small patrol vessel of other countries...armed with ESSM. Matra Sandra.....and other SAMs system.....where we are onli arm with twin mistral system....
Astro 10 or 15 is being highly rumored to be our nations next generation ship borne SAM.........do u think Aegis air defence system or STM will be considered........i personelly believe aegis is a good option....because mainly it is able to defeat......all possible air threat known to mankind(including ICBM).....i believe two of it in singapore can defead its entire sky liao....................however......maybe because of its cost and political sensitivity that it is a little too impossible for us to aqquired.........however wats ur opinion -
Honestly, i find comparing Army and the Navy alone just does not make sense. Anyone who has ample knowledge of military applications will know that the Navy will not fight by itself. It is always in co-operation with other forces.
-
The reason why singapore navy is so lacking in AD is probably becos of the way the navy was envisioned in the past...Originally posted by foxtrout8:is the matra simbad useful against sea skimming missiles... even though we are quite strong as a small nation......i really feel sad when i see .....small patrol vessel of other countries...armed with ESSM. Matra Sandra.....and other SAMs system.....where we are onli arm with twin mistral system....
Astro 10 or 15 is being highly rumored to be our nations next generation ship borne SAM.........do u think Aegis air defence system or STM will be considered........i personelly believe aegis is a good option....because mainly it is able to defeat......all possible air threat known to mankind(including ICBM).....i believe two of it in singapore can defead its entire sky liao....................however......maybe because of its cost and political sensitivity that it is a little too impossible for us to aqquired.........however wats ur opinion
formerly... RSN were never supposed to be a blue navy and thus it is suppose to operate constantly in full cooperation or under the cover of the RSAF...
The problem is... if RSAF cannot control the sky... our Navy is likely to cede control of the sea...
BUt... i see the change in the thinking of the navy as it prepares itself to the possibility of having to act alone without air cover from RSAF if the need arises...
Being self-capable of defending itself against air threat help to lessen the strain on the RSAF whose support will also be needed by the army as well...
Thus... i welcome the change in installing SAMs on RSN ships... but i believe that more can be done to increase the range of the SAMs... on RSN ships.... -
hello
Was reading through the thread and decide to add my views of the issue.
AD systems
It has been announced that aster 15 will be installed on the new frigates. This is an acknowledgement by the RSN that an air umbrella is not always present in war and that convoys, expeditions and such will still have to be protected. Moreover situations will arise that demands the ships to operate out of range of the RSAF coverage. Currently the fleet air defence missiles system consists of the Mistral and Barak as stated. True enough that the mistral is rather ineffectual against modern aerial targets but you have to consider the role of the PV and APV. It is highly unlikely that they will be required to operate independently in a high air threat environment. Nonetheless, I am not too enamoured with the mistral capability either. With regards to the Barak, the RSN has confidence in the Barak system. The recent Barak firing in the south china sea (as reported in the ST) is a validation of the Barak capability. The engagement sequence is quite impressive. AD is not just about hard kill. It also involve the use of ECM and ECCM to provide the soft kill option. Given the funding that has been poured into EW by the local military industrial complex, we should not be too surprise to realise that we have execellent EW capabilities.
It is true that the large mast contribute to a stability issue but the MCV operations has not been encumbered by it. Rather the mast provides the space to mount all the EW equipment that are most useful. With the introduction of Aster 15 and the associated electronics on the frigates, fleet air defence capability is set for a major upgrade. Current the most important air search radar is probably that of the Endurance class. It would be a good idea if datalinks can be set up between the Endurance and the Victory vessels and the warfare officers on both platform familiarise themselves with the operations. After all in war, the MCV and the LST would be involve inevitably in an escort scenario. Should the Aster 15 come online in the future, the Aster 15 and Barak could possibly be interlinked to form a multi layer air defence umbrella much like the concept the RN tried in the Falkland with the Sea Dart and the Sea Wolf -
Hello Tripwire
This post is in response to that of the engagement scenario you painted. The scenario you speak of smacks too much of hubris for comfort. Actually you are not the only one at fault. Hubris has been the downfall of many in military history. The israelis in the Yom Kippur and their catastrophe on the first 2 days of the war can be traced to hubris. It clouds our judgement of opposing force capabilities and we fall into the classic misjudgement of underestimating the enemy capability and overestimating ours. Anyway due credit should be given to the RMN modernisation. I am afraid I am unable to say anything regarding their doctirine, personnel and training but the ORBAT is certainly impressive and with their future expansion such as the Scorpene and MEKO 100 yet to come, a credible POTENTIAL adversary to the RSN has emerged.
Let's examine the scenario. I must stress that the RMN is not our enemy.
1. ID of target by MPA
The South China Sea is a large AO and the first indication of the target is often provided by ELINT. ELINT is not a highly precise method and the SCS is a highly cluttered environment in war and peace. ELINT triangulation has to be extremely precise or that local area relatively clear and all other possibilities be discounted before a firing solution and confirmation of target identity be generated. A common tactic that is often employed involves hugging to neutral shipping and hiding among sampans and other shipping. The consequences of hitting a neutral container ship or tanker is grave. Then again for a sure VID would place the MPA in danger from OPFOR SAM systems and in a scenario where time is everything, risks have to be taken in judging the identity of a contact. Moreover not all the trawlers and other vessels in the South China Sea can be an execellent source of intelligence should OPFOR chose to use them. In war, it is a possibility that our ships are discovered first and the first strike launched at us. A sampan or trawler equiped with GPS and a simple radio would be enough to serve as a lookout.
2. Missile engagement and Emission Control (EMCON)
I do not believe that the sea wolf do not have a salvo capability. Given the capability of modern point defense systems, it should have. If you would notice, the Lekiu and Laksamana has 2 FCR each (fire control radar). Now it is entirely possible that the 2 FCR can be used for 2 separate independent engagement which means that 2 missile can be engaged simultaneously. The EW capabilities of the Laksama and Lekiu should not be discounted either. I would think a 3 missiles - 4 missiles would be required for a single engagement with these combatants for a reasonable hit probability. However missile - ship engagement scenarios are enormously complicated and the missiles required and the hit probability can change depending on a whole lot of other factors such as sea state, weather, radar propagation conditions, direction of approach and such. The same line of argument can also be applied to the RSN.
It is easy for us to say that we should maintain absolute electronic silent prior to engagement. The MPA radar has its inherent limitation and the SURPIC that can be complied solely by the MPA radar should not be taken as a complete surface picture. The implication of a total EMCON by RSN ships can be quite grave.Should our ships be detected first and the first strike launched at us, we can find ourselves blind at a crucial moment. The state of EMCON should be decided by the on scene commander taking into consideration the tactical factors rather than adopt a total EMCON in every scenario. Many people do not understand that datalink is ultimately a form of radio communication and many people would have experience some sort of interference when using their mobiles. In the martitime environment where distances and conditions are more demanding, it is only reasonable to expect that the datalink is not infallible.
3. RSN and RMN vis a vis
My view on this issue is that from hardware wise, the RMN does has a definite edge currently but then both the RSN and RMN are in a stage of expansion and judgement now would be a fallacy. As for the intangibles, I cannot comment on it due to the lack of data for comparison. However maritime warfare is such an integrated branch of war, hence given the strength of the RSAF, I would say that the SAF would win in a maritime conflict but it would not be a bloodless thing -
it seems that singapore integrated and organise such a way that RSAF covers both the army & navy role in singapore defense widely.For the navy,Fokker 50 high equipped will harpoon there were reports that the electronic device are comparable to the US orion for maybe even better.
E2C allows beyond visual range targeting for missiles such as harpoon.Army!we got the Apache which is maintain by RSAF,maverick which can target ships that y i said RSAF is an allrounder in this defense network.
RSN is warming up,since RMN is on the race track too.RMN is already on the run speeding i guess but singapore jogging on the track waiting RMN to get tried before RSAF a sudden split and take out them(Story of RABBIT AND TORTOISE)
RSN , ST ,DSTA is coordinating research to develop singapore version of Firefly UAV-heli to be placed on board the frigates maybe perhaps on board the other vessals
Lots of development are on track these days.
ANY COMMENTs!!!!!! -
i somehow failed to see your so called RMN advantage when you clamed that you lack of data for comparison, then finally say that SAF would win.. did i miss something???Originally posted by solaris:Hello Tripwire
This post is in response to that of the engagement scenario you painted. The scenario you speak of smacks too much of hubris for comfort. Actually you are not the only one at fault. Hubris has been the downfall of many in military history. The israelis in the Yom Kippur and their catastrophe on the first 2 days of the war can be traced to hubris. It clouds our judgement of opposing force capabilities and we fall into the classic misjudgement of underestimating the enemy capability and overestimating ours. Anyway due credit should be given to the RMN modernisation. I am afraid I am unable to say anything regarding their doctirine, personnel and training but the ORBAT is certainly impressive and with their future expansion such as the Scorpene and MEKO 100 yet to come, a credible POTENTIAL adversary to the RSN has emerged.
**** dont be so sure... while it is unwise to underestimate your enemy... its hardly beneficial by tagging them with capability and assets they still do not have... furthermore... ORBAT is just that .... a stupid ORBAT... with only numbers and more numbers... close to worthless piece of numbers with absolutely no information pertainning to trainning, maintainance, skills and war ready capability.
Let's examine the scenario. I must stress that the RMN is not our enemy.
**** is there a need to make such a point to begin with?? surely we need an OPFOR to analyze a potential conflict... and every scenario is different depending on who is the OPFOR... if not RMN... PLAN?? or USN?
1. ID of target by MPA
The South China Sea is a large AO and the first indication of the target is often provided by ELINT. ELINT is not a highly precise method and the SCS is a highly cluttered environment in war and peace. ELINT triangulation has to be extremely precise or that local area relatively clear and all other possibilities be discounted before a firing solution and confirmation of target identity be generated. A common tactic that is often employed involves hugging to neutral shipping and hiding among sampans and other shipping. The consequences of hitting a neutral container ship or tanker is grave. Then again for a sure VID would place the MPA in danger from OPFOR SAM systems and in a scenario where time is everything, risks have to be taken in judging the identity of a contact. Moreover not all the trawlers and other vessels in the South China Sea can be an execellent source of intelligence should OPFOR chose to use them. In war, it is a possibility that our ships are discovered first and the first strike launched at us. A sampan or trawler equiped with GPS and a simple radio would be enough to serve as a lookout.
**** i ask... in the absence of MPA from the RMN side... their ships is going to run in the trading SLOC with its radars off?? wow... they are braver (or more stupid) than i thought... i would have thought they might wanna operate near their AFB for air cover at the very least like kuantan...
**** how difficult isit for a patrol plane to fly over a SLOC looking for enemy ship when the enemy (assuming its the RMN) does not posses long range medium to high altitude SAM???
**** Trawlers as lookouts is pretty much an old concept and is too well know... in fact.. any ships can be a lookout.. that brings to questions... how does RMN ship ensure that the ships that they are moving alongside on the SLOC isnt a RSN lookout???
**** lastly, subs can be placed near SLOC as lookouts as well...
**** and once a RMN ship is discovered... without its radars on... it probably wont even realised that it has been detected and VID by the enemy and probably wont even realised a harpoon is currently on its way to kill it until the ships gets hit.... if those RMN ships are the lekiu... understandably... with radar off..... its seawolf would simply sit and sink with the ship.
2. Missile engagement and Emission Control (EMCON)
I do not believe that the sea wolf do not have a salvo capability. Given the capability of modern point defense systems, it should have. If you would notice, the Lekiu and Laksamana has 2 FCR each (fire control radar). Now it is entirely possible that the 2 FCR can be used for 2 separate independent engagement which means that 2 missile can be engaged simultaneously. The EW capabilities of the Laksama and Lekiu should not be discounted either. I would think a 3 missiles - 4 missiles would be required for a single engagement with these combatants for a reasonable hit probability. However missile - ship engagement scenarios are enormously complicated and the missiles required and the hit probability can change depending on a whole lot of other factors such as sea state, weather, radar propagation conditions, direction of approach and such. The same line of argument can also be applied to the RSN.
**** The seawolf aint a new weapon and could not (from my sources) capable in firing in salvos... having 2 fire control radar might enable it to conduct 2 intercept simultaneously... but no one can say for sure if such a move is possible...even if it is... its still can be overwhelmed by a harpoon rush... the RSN just have to take the seawolf into its calculation when facing a lekiu... and those 2 ships is as good as sunk once they are spotted.
It is easy for us to say that we should maintain absolute electronic silent prior to engagement. The MPA radar has its inherent limitation and the SURPIC that can be complied solely by the MPA radar should not be taken as a complete surface picture. The implication of a total EMCON by RSN ships can be quite grave.Should our ships be detected first and the first strike launched at us, we can find ourselves blind at a crucial moment. The state of EMCON should be decided by the on scene commander taking into consideration the tactical factors rather than adopt a total EMCON in every scenario. Many people do not understand that datalink is ultimately a form of radio communication and many people would have experience some sort of interference when using their mobiles. In the martitime environment where distances and conditions are more demanding, it is only reasonable to expect that the datalink is not infallible.
****absolute EMCON??? surely i doubt we need to do that with our E2C and longer range harpoon.... its the RMN that must maintain EMCON so as to sneak close to RSN ships to use their exocet...
**** but if required... RSN can send its corvettes and MGB on EMCON and use the PVs as lookouts with their radar on... i personnaly believe that RMN will do likewise... some ship radar on... others more important ships .... radar off....
3. RSN and RMN vis a vis
My view on this issue is that from hardware wise, the RMN does has a definite edge currently but then both the RSN and RMN are in a stage of expansion and judgement now would be a fallacy. As for the intangibles, I cannot comment on it due to the lack of data for comparison. However maritime warfare is such an integrated branch of war, hence given the strength of the RSAF, I would say that the SAF would win in a maritime conflict but it would not be a bloodless thing -
hello tripwire
Apologies for not making my point clear. The point is that if a maritime contest is solely between the RSN and thw RMN, then it would be difficult to discern who would be the winner due to the reasons as given. However should the RSAF and the RMAF be included in the comparison, the current superiority of the RSAF should give the SAF the lead in a conflict. Hope this helps to clarify my point of view -
The SAF fights as an integrated whole as many would know. Hence the martime campagn is not just the sole purveiw of the RSN. To make a valid analysis, the strength of the RSAF must be considered. Similarly, an air campaign is not dependent on the strength of the RSAF soley. The army also plays a role such as by securing forward air bases, forward air defence installations and such. Whenever we analyse the possible outcome of a campaign, the totality should be considered rather than having a narrow focus. Hence I use the term SAF rather than RSN. The RSN may not have an advantage alone but the SAF certainly does
-
quote]Originally posted by solaris:
[b]Hello Tripwire
**** dont be so sure... while it is unwise to underestimate your enemy... its hardly beneficial by tagging them with capability and assets they still do not have... furthermore... ORBAT is just that .... a stupid ORBAT... with only numbers and more numbers... close to worthless piece of numbers with absolutely no information pertainning to trainning, maintainance, skills and war ready capability.
I agree with you on this that ORBAT is just numbers and have added a caveat in the post that the intangibles cannot be measured.
The Scorpene and the MEKO 100A contract has been signed and it is only fair to include them here.
**** is there a need to make such a point to begin with?? surely we need an OPFOR to analyze a potential conflict... and every scenario is different depending on who is the OPFOR... if not RMN... PLAN?? or USN? Well I guess that statement of mine was a bit redundant I confess
1. ID of target by MPA
**** i ask... in the absence of MPA from the RMN side... their ships is going to run in the trading SLOC with its radars off?? wow... they are braver (or more stupid) than i thought... i would have thought they might wanna operate near their AFB for air cover at the very least like kuantan... An MPA need not be a specialised air craft such as the Fokker 50. A modified C130 can be used as such. If I don't remember wrongly, the RMAF does have the idea of using their C130 as an MPA. Commercial business jets such as Learjets can also be used in this role. I remember the Argentinians using a modified civilian 707 as an MPA in the Falkland.
**** how difficult isit for a patrol plane to fly over a SLOC looking for enemy ship when the enemy (assuming its the RMN) does not posses long range medium to high altitude SAM??? The range at which a VID can be obtained in the SCS is often lower than expected for a lot of reasons such as meterological and such. If you happen to know any RSN personnel, ask them about the range at which a ship can be identified. You will be surprised. If yo know any MPA personnel, ask them about the difficulties of obtaining a VID.
**** Trawlers as lookouts is pretty much an old concept and is too well know... in fact.. any ships can be a lookout.. that brings to questions... how does RMN ship ensure that the ships that they are moving alongside on the SLOC isnt a RSN lookout??? I agree with your argument.
**** lastly, subs can be placed near SLOC as lookouts as well... The effective lookout(visual and electronic) radius of a sub is relatively low. A mariner would know that the height of eye on a submarine or that offered by the periscope can only give a limited viewing circle. Acoustics conditions in the SCS is rather terrible I would imagine given the depth of the water, the ambient background noise and such. However I do not deny a skilled sonar operator would be able to distinguished the acoustic profile of a warship from that of a normal merchant ship. The SCS is not a free fire zone unlike the SCS in the Pacific War to the American submariners. The point is submarines can be used but they would be rather inefficient.
**** and once a RMN ship is discovered... without its radars on... it probably wont even realised that it has been detected and VID by the enemy and probably wont even realised a harpoon is currently on its way to kill it until the ships gets hit.... if those RMN ships are the lekiu... understandably... with radar off..... its seawolf would simply sit and sink with the ship. This sceanrio can happen to any ship and not just the RMN ships.
2. Missile engagement and Emission Control (EMCON)
**** The seawolf aint a new weapon and could not (from my sources) capable in firing in salvos... having 2 fire control radar might enable it to conduct 2 intercept simultaneously... but no one can say for sure if such a move is possible...even if it is... its still can be overwhelmed by a harpoon rush... the RSN just have to take the seawolf into its calculation when facing a lekiu... and those 2 ships is as good as sunk once they are spotted. The 2 FCR can be operated independently for 2 different engagements. How? I cannot disclose
Subsitute your harpoons for exocets and the RMN ships for RSN ships and you have a possible engagement scenario for the RSN ships. And currently, by virtue of the size of the Lekiu, their ability to absorb a first strike and yet launched a second strike should be rated higher than that of the MCV....FFDC ability being rated as similar
****absolute EMCON??? surely i doubt we need to do that with our E2C and longer range harpoon.... its the RMN that must maintain EMCON so as to sneak close to RSN ships to use their exocet... There will always be special situations requiring absolute EMCON.
If i remember correctly, the range difference between the Exocet and the Harpoon is not all that great. The crucial thing is not the missile range but rather the range at which a firing solution and positive identity can be generated. A sidetrack - In the recent CARAT exercise, a group of USN and RSN officers were in the process of exercise planning when one RSN officer brought this up to a USN officer :" What about the EMCON Policy? ". The USN officer replied : " EMCON? " The USN officer serves onboard a Ticonderaga. I supose when you have a system as advanced as the aegis.....it doesnt matter if you drenched your AO with electromagnetic radiation
**** but if required... RSN can send its corvettes and MGB on EMCON and use the PVs as lookouts with their radar on... i personnaly believe that RMN will do likewise... some ship radar on... others more important ships .... radar off.... I agree with this point. Then again we should also consider the inferior performances of the radar onboard the lesser vessels. These vessels are what the professionals would call ~missile bait~ -
[quote]Originally posted by solaris:
[b]quote]Originally posted by solaris:
[b]Hello Tripwire I agree with you on this that ORBAT is just numbers and have added a caveat in the post that the intangibles cannot be measured.
The Scorpene and the MEKO 100A contract has been signed and it is only fair to include them here.
****then do we have to include RSN's lafayette and the NGPV as well as the potential use of LALEE on RSN ship?? seems to me... too much variables would have been included....
1. ID of target by MPA An MPA need not be a specialised air craft such as the Fokker 50. A modified C130 can be used as such. If I don't remember wrongly, the RMAF does have the idea of using their C130 as an MPA. Commercial business jets such as Learjets can also be used in this role. I remember the Argentinians using a modified civilian 707 as an MPA in the Falkland.
****i ask... wats the difference in terms of capability and proficiency between a dedicated MPA,crewed and trained for years compare to something that is 'put together' and expects to do the same job??
****secondly... i would like to know which idiotic RSAF commander is gonna allow an enemy C130 OR any other unknow aircraft to loiter over a battle zone?? The range at which a VID can be obtained in the SCS is often lower than expected for a lot of reasons such as meterological and such. If you happen to know any RSN personnel, ask them about the range at which a ship can be identified. You will be surprised. If yo know any MPA personnel, ask them about the difficulties of obtaining a VID.
**** I would believe that the purpose of sending a plane to do VID is clearly a last act and is only done in the event when the enemy ship is suspected of hidding among the civilian shippins in the SLOC using perhaps small vessels.
**** ships not in the SLOC will definitely be under scrutiny and ships that behaves suspiciously will almost certainly attract attentions... and lastly... if i am correct... warships that exploits SLOC for warfare is considered as breach of IMO rules.
****lastly... with the present availability of satellite... i wonder if EMCON's value maybe overstated. The effective lookout(visual and electronic) radius of a sub is relatively low. A mariner would know that the height of eye on a submarine or that offered by the periscope can only give a limited viewing circle. Acoustics conditions in the SCS is rather terrible I would imagine given the depth of the water, the ambient background noise and such. However I do not deny a skilled sonar operator would be able to distinguished the acoustic profile of a warship from that of a normal merchant ship. The SCS is not a free fire zone unlike the SCS in the Pacific War to the American submariners. The point is submarines can be used but they would be rather inefficient.
****i agreed.. i would prefer to use the submarine somewhere more useful than as a listening post. This sceanrio can happen to any ship and not just the RMN ships.
**** it also depend on the enemy's capability.
2. Missile engagement and Emission Control (EMCON) The 2 FCR can be operated independently for 2 different engagements. How? I cannot disclose
Subsitute your harpoons for exocets and the RMN ships for RSN ships and you have a possible engagement scenario for the RSN ships. And currently, by virtue of the size of the Lekiu, their ability to absorb a first strike and yet launched a second strike should be rated higher than that of the MCV....FFDC ability being rated as similar
**** i cannot agreed... a frigate taking more hits?? maybe in terms of low caliber weapon... but a direct hit from a missile can easily cripple the ship if not sinking it outright...
**** present day warship are not as well armored as battleship of yester-years. and many commented that the ships material of aluminium would actually ends up making them more easily sinkable. There will always be special situations requiring absolute EMCON.
If i remember correctly, the range difference between the Exocet and the Harpoon is not all that great. The crucial thing is not the missile range but rather the range at which a firing solution and positive identity can be generated. A sidetrack - In the recent CARAT exercise, a group of USN and RSN officers were in the process of exercise planning when one RSN officer brought this up to a USN officer :" What about the EMCON Policy? ". The USN officer replied : " EMCON? " The USN officer serves onboard a Ticonderaga. I supose when you have a system as advanced as the aegis.....it doesnt matter if you drenched your AO with electromagnetic radiation
**** well... if we have geosynchronos satellite that can keep tabs on every RMN ships... EMCON would look stupid for RMN. secondly, with overwhelming air power plus weapon reach... it really question the need for EMCON except for covert opperation.