RSS Courageous
-
Originally posted by Tachiiri Kinshi:Hey TripWire,
What happen to your SAF POWER this time? ..... bla..bla...bla
still as strong as ever... can kick your CB butt all the way to london if you want....
Another Malaysia involvement this time .... as what TripWire said before, PEOPLE DIE so what is the big deal. They die for their country, is their duty
They will be honored and remembered... their death will not be in vain...
Maybe the Merchant Ship comes with special force field eh!!! RSN cound not see it.... or maybe RSN dont have any detaction methods on board ...... words. maybe your brain got flushed downt he toilet?
or just not capable of handling the situation
I will wait for the report...
SAF The BEST? ..... if you say so TripWire
we are more power then you... and still are...
SAF are READY? .... if you say so TripWire
take us on... if you think we are not....
You want to be sencitive ... now is not the time. sensitive?? you sure you talking to me? or you got mix me up with someone else?
Look at all this Indonesia & Malaysia bashing with majority of you in this forums..... where??
is not that great & strong after all ... just WORDS. Words... is more power then a sword... but then one accident does not invalidate the entire organization... else malaysia would be in the pits decades ago...
... what is coming next. I dont do predictions... go ask your malaysian bomohs... -
while most of us here feel that is a tragedy as lives were lost, some insensitive fellows in other forums talk about the "4" (sei) theory i.e 4 january 2003, 44 crew, 4 deaths/mia,
even more horrible is that some joke that it is because of the 4% gst!
to rsn, crew of courageous and their families, hang on guys -
Originally posted by NDU:
Err, NDU, perhaps u should read properly what I meant to say.
[quote]Originally posted by Shotgun:
i've never seen a boat or warship damaged to that extent before. At least not from a war shot.
To totally ram off the entire aft section, one conclusion can be drawn, nobody realised the collision course in time. At least the RSS Courageous did not see it coming at all, else given its light weight to power ratio, would have been able to move out of the way.
1. for what i know, APV can even pick up a small contact as 'sampan' .... or those sea boat which being use by the force...(pls note... its made of RUBBER).... so... that cargo ship so BIG.... why cant they pick up???
2. ship will always onz their lighting.... unless... during ex and they go by 'darken ship' which mean that.... no light to be onz on main deck....
3. they will be MOVING!! while they are on duty.... they will move here and there!! and that type of speed they r going.... maybe 10-15 knots... however, if they wanna check on any contact... they will get speed up to maybe 20++ knots...
4. for that cargo ship... that type of speed... not fast lah.... normally only..... and most of the ships will travel up to that speed also....
thast all.... sea man... comments pls...[/b]
When I say that they did not see it coming, I am saying that their radar was turned OFF, operating under Emissions Control Procedures, (yes that include darkened ship).
Thus they probably did not see the ANL Indonesia coming at them cos their Radar was not on. It is highly improper that a patrol boat "patrolling" with their radar OFF. Given the footage of the damage, it seemed that the APV was hit on the starboard, while stationary. So 2 things don't make sense here, WHY EMCON, and WHY stationary.
Given the fact that the Fearless class only requires 30 crew at max, why was there 44? What were the additional personnel doing there?
A possibility is that, the additional 14 members are part of another technical crew specialising in something else. Perhaps something needed to be taken off the island, or something needed to be moored underwater somewhere near the island, or whatever reasons.
An explanation why Port Authorities were unable to warn of the imminent danger, may have been because the Port Authorities HAD NO IDEA the Navy had a boat sitting still there. To their knowledge, the "routine" patrol would have been following another route.
A lot of curious questions are being raised. Is it even remotely possible that the Engines and the Radar had both been damaged or malfunctioning before the collision, that the accident could not have been avoided?
Sonars, depending on the type, may not have been capable of detecting surface ships at all. Since the Courageous is one of the six boats built to hunt Subs. Thus the Straits Times report of the vessel's sonar system being unable to warn them of the danger, may not be totally logical. -
huh.. how abt replacing the NSF who is ORD soon? training is an on-going process. afterall, the maximum capacity is 50 as stated on newspaper.Originally posted by Shotgun:Given the fact that the Fearless class only requires 30 crew at max, why was there 44? What were the additional personnel doing there?
A possibility is that, the additional 14 members are part of another technical crew specialising in something else. Perhaps something needed to be taken off the island, or something needed to be moored underwater somewhere near the island, or whatever reasons. -
Capacity is 50, but crew required to run the ship, is 30.
-
It is sad that such an incident should happen......condolences to the bereaved's families..Originally posted by MinisterOfDefence:let this be a learning chapter in the history of the Republic of Singapore Navy
However, I think it is a joke that our naval vessel allow a commercial tanker to ram into it. How to defend our waters if they can even allow a commercial vessel to cause such severe damage?
Cant imagine if the Singapore Navy commision their stealth frigates.......... the excuse of the commercial vessel's captain would be......it was not on the radar screen leh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sigh............................................ -
Sonars are meant more for underwater rather than surfaceOriginally posted by Shotgun:A lot of curious questions are being raised. Is it even remotely possible that the Engines and the Radar had both been damaged or malfunctioning before the collision, that the accident could not have been avoided?
detection.
My hypothesis is those female technicians were onboard
to provide support or even to fix technical problems
on the ship, hence some or all its radars were not operational
If that is the case, the duty watchmen are responsible for
the lookout, else a replacment ship should be in position to
relieve it from duty.
Whateve it is, the warship SHOULD NOT be in harms way
at all if alertness is exercise at all times during operation. -
Too early to speculate but it gives one the shudders that a Container Ship could sail right into a Patrol Vessel with some crews on watch on both vessels.
Even if the Patrol Vessel had been immobilized by engine problem (very unlikely), surely the watch crew could have fired some flares to warn of its existence in the path of the container ship?
One shudders at the thought of lax discipline during the watch, that resulted in a large container ship coming so close that evasive action could not be taken earlier.
Will a pirate vessel creep up to hijack our Patrol Vessel one of these days, due to some NSF dozing off while on watch? -
If there are some malfunctioning..........the crew would not be staying below deck. And many actions can be taken to warn other ships..................Originally posted by Shotgun:Err, NDU, perhaps u should read properly what I meant to say.
When I say that they did not see it coming, I am saying that their radar was turned OFF, operating under Emissions Control Procedures, (yes that include darkened ship).
Thus they probably did not see the ANL Indonesia coming at them cos their Radar was not on. It is highly improper that a patrol boat "patrolling" with their radar OFF. Given the footage of the damage, it seemed that the APV was hit on the starboard, while stationary. So 2 things don't make sense here, WHY EMCON, and WHY stationary.
Given the fact that the Fearless class only requires 30 crew at max, why was there 44? What were the additional personnel doing there?
A possibility is that, the additional 14 members are part of another technical crew specialising in something else. Perhaps something needed to be taken off the island, or something needed to be moored underwater somewhere near the island, or whatever reasons.
An explanation why Port Authorities were unable to warn of the imminent danger, may have been because the Port Authorities HAD NO IDEA the Navy had a boat sitting still there. To their knowledge, the "routine" patrol would have been following another route.
A lot of curious questions are being raised. Is it even remotely possible that the Engines and the Radar had both been damaged or malfunctioning before the collision, that the accident could not have been avoided?
Sonars, depending on the type, may not have been capable of detecting surface ships at all. Since the Courageous is one of the six boats built to hunt Subs. Thus the Straits Times report of the vessel's sonar system being unable to warn them of the danger, may not be totally logical.
And I think that the truth will not be disclosed going by military protocol. Thus we can only speculate and whatever the report will be, we may have to deduce for ourselves and probably believing at to a certain extent. -
Hello
The reason why a lot of the navy ship crew among the forum contributors are not talking is probably because they fear a breach of MILSEC. Looking through the posts, I thought that I will shed a light as far as I think is allowed
1. APV has a mixed crew and the 4 servicewomen are organic components of the ship crew. We will always have onboard technicians (Weapon Electronic Technicians - WET/Engineering Tech - ENT/Marine Engineers - ME) The Combat Technician (CT) scheme adopted by the RSN has futher blurred the distinction between combat and technical personnel. Regardless of whether defects are present, technicians will always be onboard
2. The possibility of the radar and the engine been down simultaneously is extremely remote. The 2 systems are separate. RSN ships will never go out for patrol missions if any one of its major system is down.
3. ESM equipment is never used for collision avoidance. In peacetime patrol mission, the aim of the mission is to maintain surveillance of our waters. There is no reasons to maintain radar silence. A commerical navigational radar would be sufficient in normal patrol missions and the Kelvin Hughes radar installed onboard the APV is an excellent navigational radar. The signature of it is probably well known. Therefore no reason to mask the signature by employing EMCON
4. It is highly improbable that the RSN ship is at anchor especially on patrol. We need to be responsive to any contingencies that might arise during a patrol mission and being anchored will hinder us immeasurably. Should we need to be at a position, the waterjet propulsion system of the APV/PV allows you to literally hover at the point. The propulsion and steering system of the ship is reponsive as can be seen in the pictures. Watchkeeping officers onboard ships were taught to keep away from container ships and other commercial vessels due to the slower responsivenss of those ships. The distance apart under normal circumstances would be about 3 - 4 cable at least which works out to be about 500m. RSN ships will not coem close to container ships unless in very congested waters such as in the main Singapore Straits or unless in extraordinary circumstances.
5. Pedra Branca and the waters around it are in currently regarded as Singaporean territories and the waters around it are the subject of routine patrols by both the Police Coast Guards and the RSN and such patrols have been going on for years. We have no need to mask our presence
6. NDU has a humourous way of describing the bridge watch organisation but he is accurate on most count.
6. Forget about the Malaysian Conspiracy theory. It does not make sound sense to listen to course and speed direction transmitted by a land base control when you are about to enter the Singapore Straits at night. The Malaysians may make stupid comments but I hope that they are rationale and pragmatic people deep down. An intentional act to cause the collision would be stupidity and recklessness of the first degree. -
Aiya no need to say so much lah....must be the people's fault lah. Must be sleeping during the duty watch....Navy ppl famous for CHIAT LIAO BI one lah...I was formally one myself
But already out of the stupid organisation already 
-
no lah.... from the way you post... IT SHOWN THAT YOU KNOW MORE THEN ME!!(you navy ar???) i only get to know these as i always attach sailing onboard MCV, MCV, and LST... APV... seldom lah.. but, i more or less know abit of the system work onboard... when i was cpl that time... i always ask to be look out mah.... so... know abit lor...Originally posted by solaris:Hello
The reason why a lot of the navy ship crew among the forum contributors are not talking is probably because they fear a breach of MILSEC. Looking through the posts, I thought that I will shed a light as far as I think is allowed
1. APV has a mixed crew and the 4 servicewomen are organic components of the ship crew. We will always have onboard technicians (Weapon Electronic Technicians - WET/Engineering Tech - ENT/Marine Engineers - ME) The Combat Technician (CT) scheme adopted by the RSN has futher blurred the distinction between combat and technical personnel. Regardless of whether defects are present, technicians will always be onboard
2. The possibility of the radar and the engine been down simultaneously is extremely remote. The 2 systems are separate. RSN ships will never go out for patrol missions if any one of its major system is down.
3. ESM equipment is never used for collision avoidance. In peacetime patrol mission, the aim of the mission is to maintain surveillance of our waters. There is no reasons to maintain radar silence. A commerical navigational radar would be sufficient in normal patrol missions and the Kelvin Hughes radar installed onboard the APV is an excellent navigational radar. The signature of it is probably well known. Therefore no reason to mask the signature by employing EMCON
4. It is highly improbable that the RSN ship is at anchor especially on patrol. We need to be responsive to any contingencies that might arise during a patrol mission and being anchored will hinder us immeasurably. Should we need to be at a position, the waterjet propulsion system of the APV/PV allows you to literally hover at the point. The propulsion and steering system of the ship is reponsive as can be seen in the pictures. Watchkeeping officers onboard ships were taught to keep away from container ships and other commercial vessels due to the slower responsivenss of those ships. The distance apart under normal circumstances would be about 3 - 4 cable at least which works out to be about 500m. RSN ships will not coem close to container ships unless in very congested waters such as in the main Singapore Straits or unless in extraordinary circumstances.
5. Pedra Branca and the waters around it are in currently regarded as Singaporean territories and the waters around it are the subject of routine patrols by both the Police Coast Guards and the RSN and such patrols have been going on for years. We have no need to mask our presence
6. NDU has a humourous way of describing the bridge watch organisation but he is accurate on most count.
6. Forget about the Malaysian Conspiracy theory. It does not make sound sense to listen to course and speed direction transmitted by a land base control when you are about to enter the Singapore Straits at night. The Malaysians may make stupid comments but I hope that they are rationale and pragmatic people deep down. An intentional act to cause the collision would be stupidity and recklessness of the first degree. -
oeiiii... can not say like that lah... what chiat liao bi?? you ONE BAMBOO HIT ONE WHOLE BOAT!!! can not lah..... at least i know something....Originally posted by adrianweekt:Aiya no need to say so much lah....must be the people's fault lah. Must be sleeping during the duty watch....Navy ppl famous for CHIAT LIAO BI one lah...I was formally one myself But already out of the stupid organisation already
remember silkair? who was there to perform all the SAR task? how about the current issued? so many navy guyz out there was trying to help and you sing song down here? not good lah.... some more ex- navy guyz.....
kiam kan......... -
Solaris, I completely concur with what you just said.Originally posted by solaris:Hello
The reason why a lot of the navy ship crew among the forum contributors are not talking is probably because they fear a breach of MILSEC. Looking through the posts, I thought that I will shed a light as far as I think is allowed
1. APV has a mixed crew and the 4 servicewomen are organic components of the ship crew. We will always have onboard technicians (Weapon Electronic Technicians - WET/Engineering Tech - ENT/Marine Engineers - ME) The Combat Technician (CT) scheme adopted by the RSN has futher blurred the distinction between combat and technical personnel. Regardless of whether defects are present, technicians will always be onboard
2. The possibility of the radar and the engine been down simultaneously is extremely remote. The 2 systems are separate. RSN ships will never go out for patrol missions if any one of its major system is down.
3. ESM equipment is never used for collision avoidance. In peacetime patrol mission, the aim of the mission is to maintain surveillance of our waters. There is no reasons to maintain radar silence. A commerical navigational radar would be sufficient in normal patrol missions and the Kelvin Hughes radar installed onboard the APV is an excellent navigational radar. The signature of it is probably well known. Therefore no reason to mask the signature by employing EMCON
4. It is highly improbable that the RSN ship is at anchor especially on patrol. We need to be responsive to any contingencies that might arise during a patrol mission and being anchored will hinder us immeasurably. Should we need to be at a position, the waterjet propulsion system of the APV/PV allows you to literally hover at the point. The propulsion and steering system of the ship is reponsive as can be seen in the pictures. Watchkeeping officers onboard ships were taught to keep away from container ships and other commercial vessels due to the slower responsivenss of those ships. The distance apart under normal circumstances would be about 3 - 4 cable at least which works out to be about 500m. RSN ships will not coem close to container ships unless in very congested waters such as in the main Singapore Straits or unless in extraordinary circumstances.
5. Pedra Branca and the waters around it are in currently regarded as Singaporean territories and the waters around it are the subject of routine patrols by both the Police Coast Guards and the RSN and such patrols have been going on for years. We have no need to mask our presence
6. NDU has a humourous way of describing the bridge watch organisation but he is accurate on most count.
6. Forget about the Malaysian Conspiracy theory. It does not make sound sense to listen to course and speed direction transmitted by a land base control when you are about to enter the Singapore Straits at night. The Malaysians may make stupid comments but I hope that they are rationale and pragmatic people deep down. An intentional act to cause the collision would be stupidity and recklessness of the first degree.
No warship will ever sail with major systems problem. So that is ruled out.
ESM equipment is used to detect and classify radar signature. Not specifically designed for collision avoidance. But, if you are the man in charge of that station, u will note all ESM contacts. The bearing and intensity. The higher the intensity, the closer or more powerful the waves. So, given the fact that there was a collision, the ESM readings should have been pretty high, given a commercial nav radar. The operator will realise that the contact is VERY CLOSE. What I meant about calculating the position of the contact with ESM gear ALONE, is that u take the contact bearing, and intensity. Move to another position, take contact bearing and position again, and keep doing until you have a proper solution to the contact. That's one way of detecting and acquiring relatively good information about the contact passively. Modern combat systems nowadays, can calculate this continously and pretty accurately. And I believe that as a warship on patrol, the passive detection systems HAD to be operating.
Also, as a patrolling warship, the chances of the APV being achored is VERY unlikely. I totally agree. So why was it NOT in motion?
EMCON includes shutting off of EVERY emitting device. Navigational radar, ship light included. U're not supposed to even light a cig. Communications on VERY secured channels only. If the APV's nav radar was on, it would definitely have seen the giant ANL Indonesia coming at it. But it did not. 2 Possible explanations, it was damaged, or it was turned off (EMCON). Which is more likely given the conclusion that warships would not sail with major systems non-operational.
Personally, to me, the RSS Courageous was NOT operating under normal perimeters. I think that it was under EMCON, and it was definitely NOT moving. I do not wish to pry into the Courageous's mission. I only hope that such incidents will not happen again, and that we learn from our mistakes. -
Originally posted by Shotgun:Solaris, I completely concur with what you just said.
No warship will ever sail with major systems problem. So that is ruled out.
ESM equipment is used to detect and classify radar signature. Not specifically designed for collision avoidance. But, if you are the man in charge of that station, u will note all ESM contacts. The bearing and intensity. The higher the intensity, the closer or more powerful the waves. So, given the fact that there was a collision, the ESM readings should have been pretty high, given a commercial nav radar. The operator will realise that the contact is VERY CLOSE. What I meant about calculating the position of the contact with ESM gear ALONE, is that u take the contact bearing, and intensity. Move to another position, take contact bearing and position again, and keep doing until you have a proper solution to the contact. That's one way of detecting and acquiring relatively good information about the contact passively. Modern combat systems nowadays, can calculate this continously and pretty accurately. And I believe that as a warship on patrol, the passive detection systems HAD to be operating. The ESM system should be working as what you have said. But should the ship be at sailing at a slow speed - Triangulation would not be possible. Furthermore the commercial ship would be using a commercial navigational radar and this will not incite any interest from the part of the ESM operator. Furthermore in congested waters like the Singapore Straits, a filter should have been operational in the system to sieve out background electronic information such as commerical nav radar transmission. This will explain why an increase in intensity of the commercial nav radar system was not detected.
Also, as a patrolling warship, the chances of the APV being achored is VERY unlikely. I totally agree. So why was it NOT in motion? We do not know the motion status of the ship at the moment of coilision based on released information. However it could be that the APV was travelling at a very slow speed such as 3 - 4 knots. One of the patrol aims is to show our presence in our waters and you do not need to move at a high speed to do so. Moreover surveillance in the entire Singapore Straits is covered not just by the patrol ships but also by the land base systems such as the VITS administered by MPA. Should any need arise, the APV can be summoned to the required location at short notice.
EMCON includes shutting off of EVERY emitting device. Navigational radar, ship light included. U're not supposed to even light a cig. Communications on VERY secured channels only. If the APV's nav radar was on, it would definitely have seen the giant ANL Indonesia coming at it. But it did not. 2 Possible explanations, it was damaged, or it was turned off (EMCON). Which is more likely given the conclusion that warships would not sail with major systems non-operational. The navigational radar is most probably turned on. It will be easy to blame human negligence for not spotting ANL Indonesia in sufficient time to prevent collision. However assuming that human error was not involved in the radar detection (the visual lookout should have spotted the container vessel in ample time given the prevailing visibility), it could be that the vessel approached the APV from the blind arc of the radar. However this in no way excused the failure of not spotting the container vessel visually.
Personally, to me, the RSS Courageous was NOT operating under normal perimeters. I think that it was under EMCON, and it was definitely NOT moving. I do not wish to pry into the Courageous's mission. I only hope that such incidents will not happen again, and that we learn from our mistakes. -
you make it sounds like it was some secret project that went awry.Originally posted by Shotgun:Personally, to me, the RSS Courageous was NOT operating under normal perimeters. I think that it was under EMCON, and it was definitely NOT moving. I do not wish to pry into the Courageous's mission. I only hope that such incidents will not happen again, and that we learn from our mistakes. -
human error
-
If the navigation radar was turned on, HOW many people can there possibly found guilty of negligence?
The nav radar operator? The watchmen for not seeing a ship the size of godzilla? The port control? Staff on duty at Pedra Branca? Are all of them negligent at the same time? There are so many people monitoring the traffic with different equipment at that time. How many of them were sleeping on the job at the same time?
If u just add in one circumstance to the scenario, that the RSS Courageous was not supposed to be there, and was not known to be there. Even if the nav radar operator was sleeping, ( abit hard with so many other people around you), port authorities would have warned the Courageous that their plotted course was vulnerable to collision.
XLN is right... end of the day investigations will just find a bunch of people to be negligent. Kill their careers. And get on with defending Singapore. I just don't feel that things are so simple. -
Wat if...
the RSN PV is on EMCON....
The ANL Indonesia got crap radar system that cannot detect ships smaller then 80 meter long...
Plus RSN PV is painted with special radar absorbent paint coupled with other stealth features such as reduce radar cross section...
Then the RSN PV radar wont know a ship is coming... neither will the ANL indonesia knew that there is actually a stealth naval ship in its way....
Plus if the the ANL indonesia is heading towards the PV from the direction of the lighthouse... thus rendering the watchman with bino to misread the light of the ANL indonesia as the lighthouse light??
OR... if the ANL indonesia is heading toward the PV from the direction of the lighthouse.. but its lights are 'covered' by the brighter light from the lighthouse... plus the as we all know... lighthouse lights tends to blink and blink and blink... i wonder will the watchman after watching 3 and a half hour of blinking light would still be alert enough to catch the faint light of ANL indonesia in the same direction as the lighthouse light?? -
Why RSN ship is on EMCON...
1... it detected hostile radar emission from you know where.. and thus decided to go on EMCON.... as the PV lacks Anti-ship capability... best thing to do when targeted or scanned... hide....lor..
2... show off to malaysian navy that RSN PVs got stealth features??
3... to avoid detection and tracking by you know who...
4... Save electricity and fuel?? *puke*
5... the PV was ordered to go on EMCON to reduce tension with malaysia...
6... human error... forget to off EMCON.....
7... the OOW is a malaysian sleeper...
8... EMCON trainning....
9... radar got technical error?
10... human error... -
Just to let u pple know, just now when i saw on Tv the funeral for those ladies who died, i almost wanted to cry too.
So sad realli 
-
just wanna tell u.... port control will never know whats up down there!!!!Originally posted by Shotgun:If the navigation radar was turned on, HOW many people can there possibly found guilty of negligence?
The nav radar operator? The watchmen for not seeing a ship the size of godzilla? The port control? Staff on duty at Pedra Branca? Are all of them negligent at the same time? There are so many people monitoring the traffic with different equipment at that time. How many of them were sleeping on the job at the same time?
If u just add in one circumstance to the scenario, that the RSS Courageous was not supposed to be there, and was not known to be there. Even if the nav radar operator was sleeping, ( abit hard with so many other people around you), port authorities would have warned the Courageous that their plotted course was vulnerable to collision.
XLN is right... end of the day investigations will just find a bunch of people to be negligent. Kill their careers. And get on with defending Singapore. I just don't feel that things are so simple. -
By the way, the accident happens on a moonless night, so the visibility wasn't really the best. Just to clear some misconception that the visibility was at its best. This is no excuse though.
-
Port control WILL know. Like airports having military "consultants" present, so will Port control.
EMCON is not something a ship will do on patrol. Simply cos its not safe. It is only done in war or military exercises, where the situation and conditions are controlled in the latter. In war, its a necessity to survive.
For the Courageous to go EMCON like that, meant that they were directed to do so. To avoid detection, and tracking by prying eyes. And perhaps doing so, the RSS Courageous was also intensively monitoring passive detection gear. Including ESM, and sonar, as well as the human eye. Sailors would be on watch. On a dark moonless night, the ANL Indonesia SHOULD have generated enough light to be seen by any watchman awake.
After reading the report of the ANL Indonesia being released, without having to post any bank guarantee as security. I fee there is definitely something amiss. A possibility is that the commercial vessel was found to be completely innoncent of fault after investigations and interrogations. And that they were allowed to leave in exchange for their silence.
Just me and my theories. So far, the story fits the circumstances. -
while i tell you they dont know.... but u die die want to say they know.... why u so like that? how well you know abt our navy? our PSA... i mean.... i'm not that good... but my dear.... get the facts rite before u shoot!!!Originally posted by Shotgun:Port control WILL know. Like airports having military "consultants" present, so will Port control.
EMCON is not something a ship will do on patrol. Simply cos its not safe. It is only done in war or military exercises, where the situation and conditions are controlled in the latter. In war, its a necessity to survive.
For the Courageous to go EMCON like that, meant that they were directed to do so. To avoid detection, and tracking by prying eyes. And perhaps doing so, the RSS Courageous was also intensively monitoring passive detection gear. Including ESM, and sonar, as well as the human eye. Sailors would be on watch. On a dark moonless night, the ANL Indonesia SHOULD have generated enough light to be seen by any watchman awake.
After reading the report of the ANL Indonesia being released, without having to post any bank guarantee as security. I fee there is definitely something amiss. A possibility is that the commercial vessel was found to be completely innoncent of fault after investigations and interrogations. And that they were allowed to leave in exchange for their silence.
Just me and my theories. So far, the story fits the circumstances.
port control will know WHAT SHIP IS COMING INTO OUR WATER AND WANNA ENTER TO SINGAPORE!!! AND WHAT SHIPS IS LEAVING!!! (EVEN IF THEY PAST BY SINGAPORE!! THEY WILL KNOW ALSO!!) THATS ALL!!!!
as for what ship we (navy) wanna check on.... its mainly fail on the patrol ship responsibility!!! and ofcoz... the patrol vessel can REQUEST a list of ship which is leaving sin or entering sin through port control!!! thats all!!!
my dear, u really think port control know what course you are going.... what speed you are going when you are almost 60knots away??? pls pls pls....
last but not least... pls KINDLY CHECK WITH UR NAVY FRIENDS... THE BEST IF THEY ARE ONBOARD APV!!! ASK THEM... WHY WE ' CANT GIVE UP 'LIGHT HOUSE'!!!!' AND THEY WILL TELL YOU!!! FROM THERE, YOU WILL KNOW... UR SO CALL PORT CONTROL INFORMATION WAS ACTUALLY WHO GIVEN TO THEM!!!
*** if you are smart... u wil know what i tryin to SAY.... if u still say port control... then.... you are rite lor.... for me.... no problem... coz it just show to me and some others viewer... HOW SMART YOU ARE... thanz...