A Singapore aircraft-carrier?
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
SBS2601D, I never said the Aster 15 could not be developed. In fact there's already the Aster 30. As for comparing the SM2 to a Harpoon, what the heck are you on about? The SM2 and Harpoon aren't compared due to different roles. You should be comparing the Aster 30 to the SM2. You don't have a damn clue about what's going on, because these mistakes you make are basic mistakes that more informed ppl woundn't be making. At least slim10 has some background. You're hopeless.
If the Formidables were to upgrade to Aster 30, then they would also have to upgrade their radar and sensors to accommodate for the increased range of the Aster 30 as well. At 3200t displacement, this would be a difficult (but not impossible) task.
And if you want to say that the current Herakles radar is good enough, then suit yourself. However other countries wouldn't be spending a heap load of money on more advanced radars for no reason, would they?
As for storywolf, Formidables do not have Aster 30 yet. They could have, but I can only comment about the present. If you want to compare the reliability of a Harpoon vs an AIM54 Phoenix that's up to you. Can you seriously risk your ships to danger just because a missile might not be reliable? Regardless of this bizarre point you make, I'm sure the Harpoons are reliable enough.
As for the USS Stark, it is a OHP class frigate. The Americans don't really rely on their OHP for offensive duties do they?
The rest, they have too vast a terrority to defend, make it hard for them to risk assembling a strike force which could use up 1/2 to all of their su-30 !!!
Your comment above is an assumption, pure speculation that doesn't warrant a response.
Good!
Keep your misinfo that way.
Just like how most people never knew that our Fokker 50s could actually fire Harpoons till much later when it was announced. (Military nutters aside.
)Nobody said the Formidable class is damn good. Yet to say that it can't support the Aster 30 is vastly unfair to the guys who thought of potential growth to the ship.
Even so....you clearly dont do any homework. The Aster 30's detection range can't possibly be beyond the Formidable's radar.
Seriously you guys can keep debating about stuff like these, but like I say, much of it is best left unsaid.
-
-
the formidales not only have the aster 30, but can carry as many as 24 harpoon missiles as well.
-
Hmm....interestingly, the OHP class is no longer fitted with any missile launchers.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
Even if the FFGs are equipped with aster 30s (or aster 60s if there's such a thing in the future), that's not going to stop air launched harpoons. Principally, low level/stand-off pop up attacks are always a b*tch to tackle without air cover. Same reason why sea-dart armed DDGs in Falklands couldn't prevent exocet firings from the Super Etendards.The best solution is early AEW detection with air cover ie CVs. The problem with land based air cover is the endurance and positioning. Cue: That's the principal role of the escort carrier.
Of course, I wouldn't suggest that CVs should operate without AEW cover. Then again, what navalized AEW cover do we have for mini-CVs?
We **Could** fly our E-2Cs off a catapult assisted carrier, but recovery? If the CV has to rely on landbased AEW cover, it would thus be limited by the range of that AEW aircraft.
Missiles that can reach further, I contend can more adequately protect any surface ship than short range ones on its own. My logic is simple, the further I can reach to attack the missile first, the more shot opportunities I have on it without wasting too many missiles. Short ranged missiles, I have to take 2 or more shots in fairly short intervals at a single target to guarantee the safety of the ship. Longer reaching missiles can also take advantage of LOAL capabilities.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Of course, I wouldn't suggest that CVs should operate without AEW cover. Then again, what navalized AEW cover do we have for mini-CVs?
We **Could** fly our E-2Cs off a catapult assisted carrier, but recovery? If the CV has to rely on landbased AEW cover, it would thus be limited by the range of that AEW aircraft.
Missiles that can reach further, I contend can more adequately protect any surface ship than short range ones on its own. My logic is simple, the further I can reach to attack the missile first, the more shot opportunities I have on it without wasting too many missiles. Short ranged missiles, I have to take 2 or more shots in fairly short intervals at a single target to guarantee the safety of the ship. Longer reaching missiles can also take advantage of LOAL capabilities.
I agree with the above. I doubt if a mini-CV can take a E-2. But I like the G-550's range.Having said that, it might be useful to consider AEW helos but again that's dependent on the mission profile.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Of course, I wouldn't suggest that CVs should operate without AEW cover. Then again, what navalized AEW cover do we have for mini-CVs?
We **Could** fly our E-2Cs off a catapult assisted carrier, but recovery? If the CV has to rely on landbased AEW cover, it would thus be limited by the range of that AEW aircraft.
Missiles that can reach further, I contend can more adequately protect any surface ship than short range ones on its own. My logic is simple, the further I can reach to attack the missile first, the more shot opportunities I have on it without wasting too many missiles. Short ranged missiles, I have to take 2 or more shots in fairly short intervals at a single target to guarantee the safety of the ship. Longer reaching missiles can also take advantage of LOAL capabilities.
The currently AEW platform for small CV is helicopter mount airborne radar. However infuture with UAV & USV may be use instead.
I think singapore navy do recoginsed the fact that shooting down an incoming missile with missile or guns is hard - that why their last layer of defence is decoy rather then CIWS. Decoy would have better success then CIWS.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
The currently AEW platform for small CV is helicopter mount airborne radar. However infuture with UAV & USV may be use instead.
I think singapore navy do recoginsed the fact that shooting down an incoming missile with missile or guns is hard - that why their last layer of defence is decoy rather then CIWS. Decoy would have better success then CIWS.
I agree. AEW UAV is very interesting concept.
And in response to a UAV with air search radar, this is an interesting article relating to SG...
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/26/212837/australia-lifts-lid-on-joint-uav-airspace-deconfliction-programme-with.htmlCAEW is already designed not needing radar operators on board... AEW UAV not far off...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=450_1197764122&c=1
This page looks at some other options eg Osprey AEW.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm
FFGs are not entirely without gun protection. The Super Rapids have limited anti-missile capability. Ultimately, hard-kill options may be needed.
-
AEW UAVs are not impossible either, definitely worth exploring. Question is, how large would it be? So far both possible contenders for that role, G550 and Global Hawk. Of which I'd favor of landbased operations of a Global Hawk for that role due to its extremely high endurance. That should also eliminate the need to land one on a carrier deck.
True, shooting down missiles is not an easy feat, hence the more "tries" at it, the better the chances. However, I think you're right that new measures against AShM's include a variety of soft kill approaches rather than hard-kills.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
AEW UAVs are not impossible either, definitely worth exploring. Question is, how large would it be? So far both possible contenders for that role, G550 and Global Hawk. Of which I'd favor of landbased operations of a Global Hawk for that role due to its extremely high endurance. That should also eliminate the need to land one on a carrier deck.
True, shooting down missiles is not an easy feat, hence the more "tries" at it, the better the chances. However, I think you're right that new measures against AShM's include a variety of soft kill approaches rather than hard-kills.
Usually a frigate - like formidable would have the rader with range to see far enough to detect ship and planes, in normal condition. Of course when it come to wave top sea skimming - yes there may be blind spot.
UAV or USV may not need to carry a powerful rader - but how you position them. As UAV with look down radar - flying planes or missile - trying to use terrain masking or sea skimming will be detect easier with look down radar.Or USV - which is send out to the outer perimeter, should be able to detect planes or missile - as the plane or missile would be visible to the USV radar in close range, but still is advance warning to the main fleet.
Balloon or small air ship with radar also been think of in the past by other navy.
But with our Airforce having a good size tanker fleet, and longer range fighters like f-16s & f-15s, it is possible for the airforce to conduct forward sweep to clear any threads ahead or side. Which US adopt over Europe instead of asking fighters to protect the bombers - this way infact is more effective. -
The F16 is never a "long range fighter".
-
Sorry it 32 harpoons not 24
-
Originally posted by spartan_6:
Sorry it 32 harpoons not 24
Where's this info from?It's 32 Asters, not 32 Harpoons.
-
It 32 Aster-15 & up to 32 Harpoons (4 x 8rds VLS for Aster-15) + ( 8 x quad launchers for harpoons) next time if u have a chance 2 go on board take a gd look of e upper deck
-
Originally posted by spartan_6:
It 32 Aster-15 & up to 32 Harpoons
Care to tell me, where's the info from?
-
The 32 cell aster is acknowledged by mindef.
-
Originally posted by spartan_6:
It 32 Aster-15 & up to 32 Harpoons (4 x 8rds VLS for Aster-15) + ( 8 x quad launchers for harpoons) next time if u have a chance 2 go on board take a gd look of e upper deck
Sure I did have a chance...But.
It is actually 24. 3 x 4 for each side.
As far as I recall.
-
This is a nice pic of the launch bay which shows the 2x Mk-141 launchers that is normally carried.
-
I can almost confirm that Spore has ordered the Aster 30s although I have no idea whether delivery has taken place. If I am not wrong, the Formidables are designed to carry a mix of Aster 15s and 30s.
The reason why I conclude that it is almost certain that Spore has ordered the Aster 30s was because I went to the Spore airshow last year. And I visited the MBDA booth. It was stated that the Aster 30s were in service with 3 or 4 named navies(can't really remb, if not wrong is France, UK, Spain and Italy) and 1 other unnamed navy. That spiked my interest of course, and because at that time I also heard unconfirmed reports that Spore has shown keen interests in the Aster 30s and that the launchers fitted on later ships of the Formidable class are actucally the A50(which can launch both Aster 15s and 30s if I am not wrong). I spoke to those manning the booth and I must say they were rather coy on who was the unnamed customer, refusing to say anything. Well, I went to the extent of saying "is it the country in which we are now in?" and their reply was just a smile, a twinkle and the usual " sorry, I cannot say more,". But I surmise it means an implicit admission that Spore was the unnamed customer.
Also if this is to be believed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aster_15, it does show that the Formidables are equipped with the Aster 30s.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
This is a nice pic of the launch bay which shows the 2x Mk-141 launchers that is normally carried.
Yep.As you can see, there's only 3 slots for the launchers on each side. 24 it is.
-
Ha ha thank for pointing out i must be getting old liao my memory's failing
Btw i asked 1 guy from ST if our LST can support jump-jets, he said e navy had asked tat question before & is interested in a ship tat can support up 2 8 aircraft, well tat was 3-4 years ago.
-
Spartan, that's interesting. It may take a decade just to conceptualise and plan how a ship might operate and integrate into the navy. An example would be how long China took to make the decision to build its cv (and still to date, nothing being built yet).
Another possible high endurance UAV with 2k lb payload.
-
I agree with wat u saying
-
Originally posted by spartan_6:
I agree with wat u saying
Thanks.
Link to the Spanish govt website on the Juan Carlos I which provides a lot of details.
Link to MacTaggert Scott, who's manufacturing the GBP13m, 70 ton capacity lifts for the QE2 CV as well as the HMS Ocean.
-
Another air vehicle that can operate from a CVL...
NG's Fire-scout (naval)
http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/systems/mq8bfirescout_navy.html
