Another I hate Australia thread
-
Originally posted by noisylion:
System related defects or/and wrong weapon loadout for RSN Patrol Boats WRONG WEAPON AND STABILITY PROBLEMS
Why are our PV's not optimized for COIN/terror ops?
It has been 7 years since 9/11 and even more since USS Cole
Why are we still dunt can optimized face real threat to surface elements?
Weapons of PVs not realistic n unable to attack fast, small terrorist suicide craft
Anti-missile: Mistral surface-to-air missiles
Anti-submarine: Eurotorp A244-S Mod 3 torpedoes (first six ships)
Guns: Oto Melara 76 mm gunCost of running these systems are also high!
Such a ship is too clumsly for proper COIN/terror ops, also lack the tonnage and firepower to engage larger conventional elements!
jack of no trade, also master of none!
Dunt can even avoid collision with slow container ship despite "high speed" false advertising?
fiberglass hull ill-suited for taking damage, but also ship 2 big and wrong weapons to take on small terrorist boat
USS Cole big ship, already badly damaged in attack, similar attack will totally destroy PV!
STABILITY PROBLEMS IN VICTORY CORVETTES
"The corvettes are noted for their tall mast, making them top-heavy compared to ships of similar class."
During naval exercises with other countries, their navies noted the Victory's class lack of stability even in basic sea conditions!
"The Victories are appallingly top heavy, in any sort of slop they roll worse than a Adams class DDG.
I watched one making very uncomfortable way during a Kakadu exercise some years back, I was on a Fremantle, and while not exactly comfortable we were rolling and pitching far less than they were and making the same speed."
RSN counter say cos RSN sail in calm waters around Singapore, but this means that RSN cannot fight battles effectively in open seas if need be! Especially now when nature of naval battle has changed!How can such a basic design flaw be missed by ST Marine despite millions spent?
Unlike RSN, Oz made good choice in using pratical, cheaper n proven system.
ecifications
Contractor Designed and assembled by Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center;
components procured from various contractors Range 2700 yards (2.5 km) Guidance System Unstabilized, manually trained and elevated Type of Fire Single shot; 175 rounds per minute automatic Caliber 25 mm (1 inch) Date Deployed 1986This is smart, cheap, n effective way to fight terrorism in Oz seas.
1 25mm round will destroy terror boat with one hit, same like 76mm round but many times cheaper and 25mm cannon can shoot 200 rounds a minute!
76mm dunt can! heaver gun is slower and also much less accucrate on small and fast target
this is call use common sense! not everything bigger is better for a job! Oz made good choice here!
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
If it is declared FOC,it can be used to fight Aliens!!!
Are you sure? Where did you get your info about the ADF going to use their Collins to fight Aliens?
Even 6-year old knows that Collins is used to fight ships and submarines!
How do we know your posts can be trusted for good info and common sense if you can get this:
mixed up with this:
Don't be silly, everyone knows we use Collins submarines to fight ships and submarines and United States Colonial Marines to fight Aliens!
-
Say isnt that the USS Long Beach?
-
Thought they solved the "top-heavy" issue for the Corvettes some time back?
-
Apparently "solved" means reduce the risk of capsize to something more acceptable. But what exactly did they do? There was not really much they could trim from there, all the radars and stuff need to be there.
In any case there's no denying that our Corvettes are still extremely top heavy for a surface combatant, lending it not only less stability but a larger radar signature. More importantly given recent shift to some form of power-projection in our navy the Corvettes with their inability to handle heavy sea states well are becoming less suitable for the RSN's future.
-
10 combatant surface ships on stations is Oz target in 1991!
The 1991 Force Structure Review modified the three-tiered structure into a two-tiered structure in recognition that the FFH was not a second tier capability. A 28 ship surface force was envisaged for 2010 comprising 16 destroyer/frigates and 12 offshore patrol vessels.
The numbers of surface ships were calculated as follows: using pairs of major surface combatants to patrol the approaches between Derby
and the Torres Strait would require eight ships, while simultaneous patrols off the northeast coast and the North West Cape would require another two ships. To maintain these ten ships on station, 16 ships would be required...
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/workingpapers/Working%20Paper%2011.pdf p 50
www.navy.gov.au/spc/maritimepapers
Above :Map of Oz.Establishment of RAN combatant ships
Total--18 +14.
6 sub+12 frigates + ok ok 14 Patrol Boats (Coast Guard Duty)
.
Above: Map of Singapore.U read correctly.It is just a small red dot.
Establishment of RSN combatant ships:
Total 33---
4 subs
6 Formidable class frigates,
6 Victory-class missile corvettes,
6 Sea Wolf Class missile gunboats(to be replaced by new frigates)
11 Fearless-class patrol vessels
All the above SG ships,except sub, able to anti--aircraft,anti--surface and anti--sub,
with the exception of Sea Wolf not equiped with torpedo
and Fearless Class not equiped eith SAM.
Besides,67 ships of SG Police Coast Guard ,equipped with minimum
7.62 mm MG and up to 25 mm gun or 20 mm GL,
help to patrol the sea.
Interesting to note Oz just maintain small fleet.
SG Police Coast Gurad new boats
New contract for ten high speed patrol vessels 
Damen Shipyards Singapore (the specialist builder of fast aluminium vessels of the Damen Shipyards Group) has been awarded a contract by the Singapore Government for ten high speed patrol vessels.
Designated 'Damen Stan Patrol 3507' the vessels will be operated by the Singapore Police Coast Guard.
The DSP3507 is a 35 meter long aluminium monohull with a displacement of 140 tonnes. The hull shape combines high efficiency with superior sea keeping characteristics.
The total contract value is just over Singapore Dollars 135 million and includes the provision of training, spares and other services. Full details of the award are available from the Singapore Government's e-procurement portal at http://www.gebiz.gov.sg/
http://www.damen.nl/News/New_contract_for_ten_high_speed_patrol_vessels.aspx?mId=8565&rId=379&sId=3
DAMEN STAN PATROL 3407,not the subject
http://www.damen.nl/PRODUCTS/DAMEN_STAN_PATROLS.aspx?mId=8643
Am i sound anti Oz here or belittle oz?
i posted lot of social issues of Oz in Speaker Corner
and some military issues here.
My purposes to show people another side of the coin.
There are too far many people think there is heaven,
just like in the same Corner too many pple say
SG is hell!!
So ,can i express some unconventional info of oz
here?Isnt this a free forum promoting freedom of expression and
democracy?
If i am damaging reputations of oz ,expecially ADF,
pl write to Oz newspapers and sources i quote here.
I support ALL my info with officail or reliable sources,
mostly Oz's!!
All info just mainly picked up from Oz open sources,
most likely newspaper and officail reports.
Unforuntely,i have yet,repeat,yet to read any infoposted here
to state my statement
Only up to 10 naval cambtant platform defend Oz a day
is wrong or give me other info.
So,with my PSLE English,I put reasons and facts here.
And u guys,with Queens English,just scold me and has not
put forward too much reasonings.
Dunt take peace for granted
During WW2,OZ got wind of German U boat coming to Oz
and prepared to intercept the boats.
But The U862 boat still succeded!!
-
The HMS Royal Oak was sunk in scapa Flow naval base during WWII, 2-3 midget submarines infiltrated Pearl Harbor during the attack on Pearl Harbor just because the staff forgot to close the protective net... If the major powers can be hit right at their doorstep in their own naval base, why not australia??
It's the people that counts. Hardware provides the edge, but if you don't have the right people, even the Nimitz is just a piece of floating metal.
-
Besides,67 ships of SG Police Coast Guard ,equipped with minimum
7.62 mm MG and up to 25 mm gun or 20 mm GL,
help to patrol the sea.
WRONG, another example of you talking rubbish.
Firstly there's no GL in 20mm caliber in common use beyond experimental systems, another example of you making up stuff
Also, our police coast guard ships are armed with the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon, not 20mm GL and the GPMG, the 20mm Oerlikon is an obsolute, ammunition-limited WW1 design which is a far cry from the 25mm standard mounts. The Australian boats can hit up to a good kilometer further, sustain a much longer fire time, as well as lay in more firepower.
There is no 25mm autocannon in use with our Coast Guard, the heaviest weapons are the outdated 20mm Oerlikon, and that's only found in the PH Class.
The majority of your "67" ships are mostly armed with the GPMG, which is only for very close in chase work, but useless against a suicide terror boat.
In addition, our patrol boats are short-ranged craft that do not have the endurance, sensors or sea-state abilities of the Australian Pvs.
Establishment of RSN combatant ships:
Total 33---
4 subs
6 Formidable class frigates,
6 Victory-class missile corvettes,
6 Sea Wolf Class missile gunboats(to be replaced by new frigates)
11 Fearless-class patrol vessels
All the above SG ships able to anti--aircraft,anti--surface and anti--sub,
with the exception of Sea Wolf not equiped with torpedo
and Fearless Class not equiped eith SAM.
WRONG Again, you go by tonnage, not number of vessels. The RAN is actually LARGER.
If I have one Iowa class battleship and you have 20 sampans armed with AK-47 you can say you have a bigger navy?
NO.
Firstly our 4 Subs are small, refurbished vessels a far cry from the huge, deep ocean Collins class, our subs are only capable in local waters.
As noted from lessons learnt from the USS Cole, there is a serious defect in the ability to handle unconventional seaborne terrorist threats, such as the fast suicide boats.
All of the Naval classes lack the proper weapons to handle such a threat properly, they are more suited to fight a conventional war against large surface combatants.
Our Naval Fearless class are the main line of defence against such a threat, but they weapons complement are still inadequate to effectively handle such a threat.
Now use your common sense.
As to why the Australia maintains a "small" fleet- this is because unlike us they have a vast ocean as a natural buffer between them and Australia while we are trapped in small waters in which the area you can move around in can easily be covered by a Harpoon missile. Hence a lot of our navy is made out of smaller combatants designed for still water. But when it comes to open sea confrontation our navy is far less capable. In fact the only ships that are really effective in a big ocean battle would be our Formidible class.
But if you go by tonnage, endurance, firepower, the RAN exceeds the RSN by far. They are a true, blue water navy.
This means that despite our supposedly "large" number of ships, they are actually highly specialized and are not as able to fight in all conditions as a real blue water navy. This also means in the opening hours of any war, our navy will take a lot of firepower coming their way because by virtue of our limited seas, there's not much place to hide.
Hence our concentration on getting more numerous, less smaller ships. If you note the Australians actually have more long range heavyweights then us, despite the lower number.
Unlike us the Australians will have plenty of time to know that an enemy fleet is coming and can choose their place to fight a pitched naval battle. More importantly they will have plentry of time to pick away at the enemy with their Collins, which can penetrate the ASW dragnet of the USN. One Collins sub can effectively give a bad day to any enemy fleet far out in the ocean.
Also our Seawolfs are being retired and of little use in a modern naval war, plus two of our Formidibles are not commissioned yet so the standing effective strength of our fleet is actually 25 NOT 33.
And note beyond the Formidible class the rest of our navy are actually lightweights. So in terms of tonnage, which is the way to measure things naval, the RAN combatant strength is actually LARGER then the RSN, which only has 6 3200 ton ships and which the rest are just 600 ton below lightweights. The RAN sports 12 multi thousand ton surface combatants.
To give you an idea, one RAN frigate packs as much anti-air and anti-sub and anti-surface punch as 2-3 our of Victories, and can project this firepower further as well with it's much greater endurance. Their 5 inch naval guns make our 76mm gun look like a popgun, and they can project this firepower much further as well. In addition unlike our Corvettes and Frigates which rely on chaff to make last-ditch defence against ASMs, they have CIWS systems to give a hard-kill as well.
And if you add up the firepower and torpedo storage capability of their submarine force, six 3,000 ton plus deep ocean SSKs with ADCAP and Harpoon capability plus the HK capability of the Virginia class SSN, versus our refurbished 1000 ton previous generaton SSKs. The disparity grows.
The RAN actually has more firepower then our navy!
-
Am i sound anti Oz here or belittle oz?
i posted lot of social issues of Oz in Speaker Corner
and some military issues here.
My purposes to show people another side of the coin.
There are too far many people think there is heaven,
just like in the same Corner too many pple say
SG is hell!!
So ,can i express some unconventional info of oz
here?Isnt this a free forum promoting freedom of expression and
democracy?
If i am damaging reputations of oz ,expecially ADF,
pl write to Oz newspapers and sources i quote here.
I support ALL my info with officail or reliable sources,
mostly Oz's!!
All info just mainly picked up from Oz open sources,
most likely newspaper and officail reports.
Unforuntely,i have yet,repeat,yet to read any infoposted here
to state my statement
LOL don't make us laugh.
You are now invoking "freedom of speech" when you are the very one saying that this value ought to be suppressed for the "good" and "stability" of Singapore in speaker's corner? Your words ring hollow.
What reliable and official sources?
All you've done is quoted sensationalist, biased and politically charged media articles and claimed them as fact, when a person with basic logic can see right through them. If you believe them then indeed you are quite a fool.
Best, you have tried not to take them in context, avoiding the real issues in your posts, as well as disbelieving the articles actually written by MILITARY EXPERTS on the matter.
Isn't it obvious you just don't know your stuff?
And better, you add your own pepper and salt to the flawed media articles you quoted, stuff like F-18s getting launched off LHDs.
-
lionnoisy has what i would deem the true believer syndrome and the spotlight fallacy.
That is he believes in the supremacy of the SAF no matter what and the incompetency of the ADF, no matter what flaws and blunders the SAF makes and what achievements the ADF has. No matter what people who have served in the military and trained with the equipment tells him, he refuses to believe in anything other then his "side" of the coin, which does not exist to begin with.
True-believer syndrome is a term coined by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged.[1] It has since been applied, more loosely, to refer to any belief without empirical or logical foundations..
Examples
Raoul
In his book The Psychic Mafia, Keene tells of a psychic medium named Raoul. Some people still believed that Raoul was genuine even after he openly admitted that he was a fake. Keene wrote "I knew how easy it was to make people believe a lie, but I didn't expect the same people, confronted with the lie, would choose it over the truth. ... No amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie."[4]
Carlos
According to the Skeptic's Dictionary, an example of this syndrome is evidenced by an event in 1988, when James Randi, at the request of an Australian news program, coached stage performer José Alvarez to pretend he was channelling a 2000 year old spirit named "Carlos". Even after it was revealed to be a fictional character created by himself and Alvarez, people continued to believe that "Carlos" was real.[3] Randi commented: "no amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it, is ever going to convince the true believer to the contrary."[5]
419 scam
Article 419 frauds, also known as advance fee fraud, involve individuals inveigling others to give them their bank details, supposedly in order to make a large deposit, but actually in order to drain the account. Anti-419 activists refer to those who sometimes continue to believe in the good faith of the fraudsters as "true believers".[6]
Also his reliance on the media and inability to make any sort of critical thinking shows that he quite truly suffers from the spotlight fallacy:
Spotlight fallacy
The Spotlight fallacy is committed when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media. This line of “reasoning” has the following form:
1. Xs with quality Q receive a great deal of attention or coverage in the media. 2. Therefore all Xs have quality Q.
This line of reasoning is fallacious since the mere fact that someone or something attracts the most attention or coverage in the media does not mean that it automatically represents the whole population. For example, suppose a mass murderer from Old Town, Maine, received a great deal of attention in the media. It would hardly follow that everyone from the town is a mass murderer.
The Spotlight fallacy derives its name from the fact that receiving a great deal of attention or coverage is often referred to as being in the spotlight. It is similar to Hasty Generalization, Biased Sample and Misleading Vividness because the error being made involves generalizing about a population based on an inadequate or flawed sample. The Spotlight Fallacy is a very common fallacy. This fallacy most often occurs when people assume that those who receive the most media attention actually represent the groups they belong to. For example, some people began to believe that all those who oppose abortion are willing to gun down doctors in cold blood simply because those incidents received a great deal of media attention. Since the news media typically cover people or events that are unusual or exceptional, it is somewhat odd for people to believe that such people or events are representative.
Examples
- I wouldn't like to go to America because of all the gun crime; we see it on the news all the time.
- Muslims are always in the news blowing other people up; so all Muslims are terrorists.
- Doctor: Why don't patients make some effort to look after themselves? My surgery is full of people who eat, drink, smoke and don't get any exercise. Of course he may have many more patients who do look after themselves and don't often turn up in his surgery; there's also the possibility that the patients who do look after themselves will be less likely to turn up in his surgery because of the fact that they take care of themselves and are healthier than those who don't.
- Why do young people all take drugs and go around mugging old ladies? You read about it in the paper all the time!
- Child: When I grow up I want to be a singer. Have you seen how much money those pop-stars make?!
- lionnoisy: I support ALL my info with officail or reliable sources, mostly Oz's!! All info just mainly picked up from Oz open sources,most likely newspaper and officail reports. F-18 to be launched off LHDs!
LOL! Pwned again!
-
Originally posted by noisylion:
Can any one object to the following figures?
http://www.goodenglish.org.sg/site/
Is it enough to make Sg english good??I dunt want need send Oz education to help!!
lionnoisy E.R.D (ENGLISH READY DAYS)
.............................(lionnoisy)
Posts made (as of 17th April 2008)--------------3012
Posts with good spelling ----------------------------0
Posts with proper grammar-------------------------0
Post with proper sentence structure--------------0
ERD------------------------------------------------------------0
(English ready days)
Achieved----------------------------------------------------0
Substantially achieved---------------------------------0
Englishs avaiable per day(max): 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total:0!!
-
Also, what media articles are you going to use to support:
Fantail crash into targets
F-18 launch off LHDs
SAR-21 carry like handbag and run for your life
Inline skate force
250-ton Mandai UAF used for 30 MEGATON application like Cheyenne Mountain
????
-
If i am wrong,tx for your amendment.I copy from Jane's Fighting Ships 07/08....
pl be reminded that our Coast Guard just tasked to catch II
,pirates,illegal fishing boats(SG have not claimed EEZ)etc
. our terrority water just 3 nm...
SG CG IS NOT navy.They are not ,as their counter part in Oz,
expected to fight with invading enemy navy.
No need to remind us how powerful of weapons
in Oz Patrol Boats.But I pity the PB crews that they
,in your valuable views,have to fight with enemy naval
ships with their 25mm guns.
Do u think enemy naval ships,sailing from thousand
of miles away,just equipped with small guns to
fight with Oz PB ?
Oz coast line is about 18,000 km.
If any poor Oz PB need support,what is the chance that
OZ 8 surface combatant ships(frigates),2 ''most powerful conventional subs'' and 9 PB
(equipped with 25 mm gun and ''one 25mm round will destroy terror boat with one hit'',but not enemy naval ship!!)
which are on station in any day,happen
to be around ?What is the chance that the help can reach in ,say within 1 hour ?
Dunt mix up the role of Navy and CG!
It is becos OZ do not get CG!!
THats why navy is tasked with CG jobs!!
-
Yawn, your latest reply is rambling in circles, you state facts that had you bothered to think a bit more beyond the surface, would have answered your own criticisms.
I like the way you invent some points as well.
No need to remind us how powerful of weapons
in Oz Patrol Boats.But I pity the PB crews that they
,in your valuable views,have to fight with enemy naval
ships with their 25mm guns.
Do u think enemy naval ships,sailing from thousand
of miles away,just equipped with small guns to
fight with Oz PB ?
Did I say that or did you invent it because you failed your english comprehension?
Let me remind you then to exercise basic english comprehension.
note a keyword:
COIN
TERROR
This lionnoisy fantasy situtation of PVs going to face heavy naval combatants would only happen if the RAN had your kind of thinking, the same kind of thinking that have you wanting to launch F-18s off LHDs
Unfortunately for you, the RAN has far more common sense meaning your point is invalid.
The RAN PVs are dedicated to the role of facing the threat that hit the USS Cole, as well as other smaller threats on which a heavy surface combatant would be a waste of resources. The RAN is not going to use them to fight an heavy combatant just because they are in the navy.
which are on station in any day,happen
to be around ?What is the chance that the help can reach in ,say within 1 hour ?
Just because you use your limited command of the language and put words together does not mean your poorly-thought out fantasy scenarios are going to happen.
You seem to have this fantasy that a fleet of multi thousand ton ships can just teleport out of nowhere across thousands of miles of ocean and surprise the Australian navy without getting picked up by radar or sonar or other forms of sensors when such a journey will take days and leave plentry of time to get detected and having actions taken by the right kind of naval unit long before they even come close to Australian waters.
What that can suddenly happen anyday is the small, terror suicide boat that the PV is designed to handle that our current navy and coastguard cannot effectively, an Iowa class battleship is not going to "anyday, happen to be around". You might as well say 15,000 enemy tanks "anyday, happen to be around" Orchird road.
This is not surprising given your inline skates, F-18s off LHDs and crashing Fantail ideas all defy good common sense.
Going by your logic, you might as well say that our Primus is useless and has no role because it is totally defenceless if an MBT suddenly teleported next to it and the closest help is too far away.
Going by your logic you might as well say we shouldn't have people doing guard duty because all they have is a SAR-21 and 5 rounds because what if a Gundam suddenly show up?
Going by your logic, you might as well say we have to use Leopard 2s to do guard duty
Your idea of a PV having to face an enemy fleet is pure fantasy. Such an action would be picked up days before they have even entered into Australian waters and dealt out with far out in the Ocean via the Collins or Frigates. In fact the things that do slip through and get close are those small terror/smuggler vessels that don't show up on radar until too late. This is what they have the PVs for.
Unlike you, the RAN knows what unit to pit against what unit. The Fearless class PV with all the wrong weapons, as well as our short-ranged Police Coastguards armed with old 20mm cannons in a few ships and mainly GPMGs will be far less capable of in the COIN/terror ops as the modern, sea-state 5 capable, 25mm stabilized deck mounted autocannons.
pl be reminded that our Coast Guard just tasked to catch II
,pirates,illegal fishing boats(SG have not claimed EEZ)etc
. our terrority water just 3 nm...
SG CG IS NOT navy.They are not ,as their counter part in Oz,
expected to fight with invading enemy navy.
So what? You think the terrorist suicide craft is going to care if your are Police Coast guard or not? Do you think they are going to surrender just because you have some WW1 20mm cannon and mostly GPMGs?
Note that our vital installations like Jurong Island or Changi Naval base still have to be protected? By who? Our limited numbers of Fearless class that are not even suited for the role with the clunky weapons loadout? By our police coast guard who is armed just with manually operated WW1 20mm cannons and GPMGs?
You seem to have this inability to use good common sense about anything, which is no surprise you think the RAN are going to make bad choices... because you think they have YOUR kind of ideas
Dunt mix up the role of Navy and CG!
It is becos OZ do not get CG!!
THats why navy is tasked with CG jobs!!
You are just playing on labels, nothing you said changes the fact that the Aussies still have a more capable COIN/terror platform then us. And nothing changes the fact that despite the lame idea you are trying to push on them, they're not going to use their PVs to fight heavy combatants, even if those fictional lionnoisy ships can cross thousands of miles of ocean in one hour without being detected and spring up beside a PV.
And going by your label-playing logic, are you saying our Air Force is mixing up the roles because we use the RSAF to ferry our troops around while the US Army they have their own air wing to fly their troops in helicopters and let the USAF concentrate on the air war?
-
Of course, going by your logic of needing to cover each and every 18,000 km of coastline then Australia needs somewhat like 300 ships daily patrolling it's water costing billions to operate, a force that can rival and exceed even the USN.
LOL, you not only failed to comprehend that your arguments have been totally destroyed, but it seems your poor comprehension of my points have led you to make arguments that only backfired on yourself.
Work on your ERD (English Ready Days) first before you make your next move
-
Also, you still haven't answered:
what media articles are you going to use to support:
Fantail crash into targets
F-18 launch off LHDs
SAR-21 carry like handbag and run for your life
Inline skate force
250-ton Mandai UAF used for 30 MEGATON application like Cheyenne Mountain
????
And how come you abandoned your Espionage in SG thread?
-
Worse, the fleet tonnage disparity is going to grow even more when they replace their four 4,100 ton Adelaides frigates with four 6,250 ton AAW Destroyers equipped with AELGIS. Each of these AAWDs are nearly TWICE as massive as our Formidibles and pack nearly twice the punch.
In the meantime the vast majority of our fleet is made out of 500 ton, and 600 ton short ranged, shallow water lightweights with five times less range and endurance.
Throw this in with their next generation SSK project that improves and draws from the lessons learnt from their Collins class.
-
here i am to give my 2 cents worth...sorry if im going off topic
anws, personally, i feel that the difference in capabilities is mainly due to a difference in requirements, as has been mentioned, sg and aussie are in 2 different environments, (sg is surrounded by other countries, and thus has an extremely constricted area to defend), while aus is surrounded by large areas of sea, thus having a larger area....thus, both navies have rather different requirements, since they have somewhat different roles.
lets say in a war situation, the sg navy might acutally (my guess) be working under the assumption of adequate air cover, and not having to leave into the big blue yonder for war (at least not the PBs)....with peacetime duties of trade protection from pirates and general policing...
while for the aussies, my idea would be that their defence would be based on the acquitsiton of early intelligence, in order to forestall or predict any incoming threats, while they would have a peacetime duty of general duties, without the pirate protection role... thus the lack of a need for a large number of ships steaming at any one go....since the early intelligence would allow them to prempt these threats, and thus have a general mobilisation of its ships, however, going by my reading, apparently the aussies have a crew shortage, this should actually be rectified, since no crew would still make the ship a useless piece of steel,
...i think im going off topic.... so shall end here :D
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Even one 25mm round hitting a terrorist boat can do the job, shredding the terrorist and boat alike.
One 76mm round will only hit a boat if it's a lucky shot, and it's total overkill, not to mention way slower in rate of fire and gun laying.
76mm shells are also a lot more expensive and far less useful against such threats.
The 25mm cannon can spew out TWO HUNDRED of these terrorist-stopping shells per minute, way above the rate of the 76mm gun.
Oto Melara 76 mm gun It is capable of very high rates of fire, making it suitable for short-range anti-missile point defence. Its calibre also gives it abilities for anti-aircraft, anti-surface and ground shelling. Specialised ammunition is available for armour piercing, incendiary, directed fragmentation !!!
85 round/min - is not slow !
If it can take out short range anti missile - it can take out 40 knots speedboats..... and it will not be lucky shot !
In fact both 76mm & 25mm (200 rounds per minute) both are over kill for terrorist speedboats - they both can easily take out muliple high speedboat easily .... but in habour or crowded sea both are too powerful ... as they risk damaging other ships in the area .....
By the way our boat carry 2 x 0.5 (400 -600 RPM ) which will be more then enough to do the job.
I think both 76mm & 25mm does have their own adv and disadv ... you cannot say our Patrol boat is wrong to arm with 76mm.
I do find the combination of 76mm with 0.5s ..... does give us a perfect combination mix of attack & defense arment.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
Oto Melara 76 mm gun It is capable of very high rates of fire, making it suitable for short-range anti-missile point defence. Its calibre also gives it abilities for anti-aircraft, anti-surface and ground shelling. Specialised ammunition is available for armour piercing, incendiary, directed fragmentation !!!
85 round/min - is not slow !
If it can take out short range anti missile - it can take out 40 knots speedboats..... and it will not be lucky shot !
In fact both 76mm & 25mm (200 rounds per minute) both are over kill for terrorist speedboats - they both can easily take out muliple high speedboat easily .... but in habour or crowded sea both are too powerful ... as they risk damaging other ships in the area .....
By the way our boat carry 2 x 0.5 (400 -600 RPM ) which will be more then enough to do the job.
I think both 76mm & 25mm does have their own adv and disadv ... you cannot say our Patrol boat is wrong to arm with 76mm.
I do find the combination of 76mm with 0.5s ..... does give us a perfect combination mix of attack & defense arment.
I don't think you've fired a .5MG on a moving, floating platform.
It sucks big-time. It is only useful in warning shots.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
I don't think you've fired a .5MG on a moving, floating platform.
It sucks big-time. It is only useful in warning shots.
If it is so suck and use only in warning shots then why it is so commonly put use for defense, jeeps and armour vehicles ? -
Originally posted by storywolf:
Oto Melara 76 mm gun It is capable of very high rates of fire, making it suitable for short-range anti-missile point defence. Its calibre also gives it abilities for anti-aircraft, anti-surface and ground shelling. Specialised ammunition is available for armour piercing, incendiary, directed fragmentation !!!
85 round/min - is not slow !
If it can take out short range anti missile - it can take out 40 knots speedboats..... and it will not be lucky shot !
In fact both 76mm & 25mm (200 rounds per minute) both are over kill for terrorist speedboats - they both can easily take out muliple high speedboat easily .... but in habour or crowded sea both are too powerful ... as they risk damaging other ships in the area .....
By the way our boat carry 2 x 0.5 (400 -600 RPM ) which will be more then enough to do the job.
I think both 76mm & 25mm does have their own adv and disadv ... you cannot say our Patrol boat is wrong to arm with 76mm.
I do find the combination of 76mm with 0.5s ..... does give us a perfect combination mix of attack & defense arment.
Nah, experience has shown that in theory all these words look nice on paper, but in pratice things can be quite different.
If the "terror" speedboat was a target drone in calm sea states and you are shooting at it in optimal conditions then prehaps things will work.
Prehaps if the terror boats approach you piecemeal, then prehaps you have a chance of stopping it with the 76mm.
The task becomes more complicated if there are multiple bogeys moving at you at high speed, you are moving at flank speed (to avoid them), running evasive patterns or worse at high sea states where the platform is listing from side to side considerably.
In that case, to probability of kill trying to rotate the entire 76mm turret and slave the heavy gun it to a small, fast target whose only idea is to ram into you becames exceedingly small.
This is why the a lighter, faster gun that spews out shells at over twice the rate is far more suitable for such applications. Not only is the 25mm gun much, much faster to move, it is also easier to stabilize as well as being able to keep up a longer time of fire due to its increased ammunition capacity. For the COIN/Terror this is the more practical, cost-effective solution.
.50 is unlikely to work unless you're getting really close, and at that point the suicide boat is already in its terminal approach, even if you kill the driver you're screwed if that thing just triggers on impact.
The problem is also that our 76mm is on the smaller side of naval mounts, it is kind of a popgun compared to the 5in mounts we see on the RAN frigates.
I doubt the 76mm is good for point missile defence with modern ASMs, in fact I've yet to hear of naval mounts being used effectively in such a role.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
If it is so suck and use only in warning shots then why it is so commonly put use for defense, jeeps and armour vehicles ?
Jeeps and Armored Vehicles when stopped, don't bob up and down. Sea-state however, tends to contribute to unintentional random displacements of .5 Cal rounds. Aka "Miss".16/f/lonely from Navy?
-
Not that it's impossible to hit stuff, but a lot harder.
Add those complications to a much larger, heavier 76mm gun trying to hit a small target at range.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Jeeps and Armored Vehicles when stopped, don't bob up and down. Sea-state however, tends to contribute to unintentional random displacements of .5 Cal rounds. Aka "Miss".16/f/lonely from Navy?
Yes. I'm a gunner. Thus my opinion having used the guns mentioned here.Soon I'll get to try the 20mm as well!
That is if.....the gun gets installed in place of the freakin idiotic .5MG before I ORD.