Mistral Sam system in RSN , obsolete??? Replacement??
-
Our Navy is rather cute i would say. We run one of the world's smallest craft as our main surface Combatant , however yet one of the most well equipped , with relatively up to date technology (as a whole) and supported by a well formated logistic network. Yet i would say , there are still very clear loopholes in some of the Naval system.
The twin Mistral system is one major example. With the growing naval air threats in the region , its rather pathetic to see our well armed ship being protected with this short ranged , manual launch SAM. In previous threads , one could argue that our past naval doctrine was more onto littoral defense , thus a longer ranged SAM isnt necessary . However still I dun think these Mistral system well protect our ship well agaisnt incoming SSM , which are a threat even in littoral mission.
Could we discuss on ur views whelther is the Mistral System obsolete to enemy air threats and if so , will there be a replacement . -
SA-2 baby.....SA-2
-
The barak point defence system is more than capable for the job but will require large compartment space to house these stuff so I won't see it a viable option on missile gun boat size naval vessile.
BTW, would like to see how the barak-ER (extended range) fare as the current barak only has a range of 12 odd km -
Erm. .. You sure there is a Barak ER??????
Anyway, here are a couple of good sources of info for the Barak . ..its hard to find info on it. ..somehow Israeli armaments don't make it big on the internet.. . .
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/sea_missiles/barak/Barak.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Barak.html
If not the barak, then how do you guys think the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow (sea version of AIM-7) will perform? Note its much longer range but also larger size. . .
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/rim-7.htm
The RIM-7P version sounds pretty good, especially I think most of the time, the most important target for these shipborne SAMs will be Anti-ship missiles, many of which will be sea-skimming to make them harder to detect. . .
Also check out the:
Aster 15
Aster 30
Note these might come on the new delta frigates, so it owuld not be a bad idea to arm all of RSN's ships with them in future. Considering the great range of the Aster 30 (3km to 80km), but the 3 km will have to be covered by the guns though. . .You'll want a pretty large number of these aboard, read the FAS website, the Aster 30 missed by 4 meters, its very good, but probably not good enough to save your ship. . .
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/aster.htm
The above is basically ALL that I think should be considered from what I've seen so far. . .
Basically, I think they should equip the all the ships with a 32-cell VLS system for air defence, cos even if the ships are meant for coastal defence, Anti-ship missiles can still be fired at them, and they'll have nothing to shoot back unless they have CIWS, which RSN has never used and do not intend to use. . . -
I should say the Barak-ER would be the upcoming Barak 2 which has both the naval VLS configuration and land based "patriot" alternative version.
We currently own the Barak 1 VLS on our coverttes.
Get barak, we can 1 stone kill 2 birds and mostly probably it will be manufactured and enhanced locally together with the spikes assembly.
As for sea sparrow rim-7, it is mainly for large aerial target and it slower response time is not effective against sea skimming missiles SSM or ASM. Besides, it can't vector thrust like barak. -
I should say the Barak-ER would be the upcoming Barak 2 which has both the naval VLS configuration and land based "patriot" alternative version.
We currently own the Barak 1 VLS on our coverttes.
Get barak, we can 1 stone kill 2 birds and mostly probably it will be manufactured and enhanced locally together with the spikes assembly.
As for sea sparrow rim-7, it is mainly for large aerial target and it slower response time is not effective against sea skimming missiles SSM or ASM. Besides, it can't vector thrust like barak. -
heh. land based version of Barak...
quite cool to replace rapiers? -
The mistral is like the stinger......used to shoot down choppers nia.....i mean it's range is like what? 2Nm? practically useless!As for the Barak you sure it's only 7Nm range? and the Aster being a mere 20Nm?!i maybe alittle rusty but the Excoet is like 20Nm range too right? Meaning all we can do it engage the missile when it is already fired and does not fit well with our idea of deterence! i say we should get something with a range of at least 25Nm i suppose like the SM-2
-
Aegis Combat System is the man. I will like to see it in our Delta Frigate , one Aegis system along the Strait of Singapore and near the strait of Johore can protect the whole of Singapore from air threats ranging from aircraft to rockets. If it can protect such a big area , one ship in midst of one strike fleet will be enough to counter air threat in our region.
As for the replacement of the Mistral , i will vote for the Barak Missile defence system. 10km range Barak will be sufficent for the PVs as they are armed for Littoral defense. If the PVs will be missioned to follow a strike package , i believe a large combatant such as the Delta will have the enough fire power as the first line of defense. -
Delta frigate is too small for such a system. However, it might have a similar abiet shorter range system called the arabel which can be used to guide 8 aster simutaneously.Originally posted by foxtrout8:Aegis Combat System is the man. I will like to see it in our Delta Frigate , one Aegis system along the Strait of Singapore and near the strait of Johore can protect the whole of Singapore from air threats ranging from aircraft to rockets. If it can protect such a big area , one ship in midst of one strike fleet will be enough to counter air threat in our region.
As for the replacement of the Mistral , i will vote for the Barak Missile defence system. 10km range Barak will be sufficent for the PVs as they are armed for Littoral defense. If the PVs will be missioned to follow a strike package , i believe a large combatant such as the Delta will have the enough fire power as the first line of defense. -
Mistral is being used on the charles De Gulle the newest french carrier and is far from outdated. The purpose of the mistral is to provide point protection for a ship and is similar to that of the RAM. However, I agree that the 2 missile launcher is insufficient to meet our needs today, maybe the Navy can consider upgrading it to the 6 cell simbad laucher insteadOriginally posted by foxtrout8:Our Navy is rather cute i would say. We run one of the world's smallest craft as our main surface Combatant , however yet one of the most well equipped , with relatively up to date technology (as a whole) and supported by a well formated logistic network. Yet i would say , there are still very clear loopholes in some of the Naval system.
The twin Mistral system is one major example. With the growing naval air threats in the region , its rather pathetic to see our well armed ship being protected with this short ranged , manual launch SAM. In previous threads , one could argue that our past naval doctrine was more onto littoral defense , thus a longer ranged SAM isnt necessary . However still I dun think these Mistral system well protect our ship well agaisnt incoming SSM , which are a threat even in littoral mission.
Could we discuss on ur views whelther is the Mistral System obsolete to enemy air threats and if so , will there be a replacement . -
For wat i know , the Sadral system isnt manual launch so comparing it to the manually launch Simbad , the six cell is a much reliable one. However still i find that the 4 km range missile have to be replace by one with longer range to increase reliability.Originally posted by Matlaysia:Mistral is being used on the charles De Gulle the newest french carrier and is far from outdated. The purpose of the mistral is to provide point protection for a ship and is similar to that of the RAM. However, I agree that the 2 missile launcher is insufficient to meet our needs today, maybe the Navy can consider upgrading it to the 6 cell simbad laucher instead
I think u made a mistake , the Simbad is Twin-celled while the Sadral is Six-celled . -
err...4km range??thats a mere 1.8Nm!!!!!
if the missile thats to tat range the ship is more or less screwed......heck the sea vulcan has a range of 3Nm! -
It isn't just the range that matters, the idea is that the thing must be very accurate, it isn't easy hunting a sea-skimmming missile, why do you think many larger ships have CIWS to destroy anti-ship missiles despite having supposed anti-missile missiles onboard?Originally posted by |-|05|:The mistral is like the stinger......used to shoot down choppers nia.....i mean it's range is like what? 2Nm? practically useless!As for the Barak you sure it's only 7Nm range? and the Aster being a mere 20Nm?!i maybe alittle rusty but the Excoet is like 20Nm range too right? Meaning all we can do it engage the missile when it is already fired and does not fit well with our idea of deterence! i say we should get something with a range of at least 25Nm i suppose like the SM-2 -
definitely. . , its longer range but prob is that it ain't as light. . .Originally posted by Moonstriker:heh. land based version of Barak...
quite cool to replace rapiers? -
Cos a carrier got other ships protecting it, and in terms of air defence, its fighters are supposed to take care of it! Mistral is seriously lacking in range and capability. . ., if any enemy launches an anti-ship missile at the Mistral armed ships, they might as well sit there and wait to die. . . .Originally posted by Matlaysia:Mistral is being used on the charles De Gulle the newest french carrier and is far from outdated. The purpose of the mistral is to provide point protection for a ship and is similar to that of the RAM. However, I agree that the 2 missile launcher is insufficient to meet our needs today, maybe the Navy can consider upgrading it to the 6 cell simbad laucher instead -
Frankly speaking other then the range , i find that space allowance is another major advantage that the Barak can provide. Comparing to the Rapier , the VLS Barak require a much lesser land clearance to launch. This is essential for urban and Jungle hubbed Singapore.Originally posted by laser51088:definitely. . , its longer range but prob is that it ain't as light. . .
In other threads , i did state abt having multiple static Barak Missile system in various stratigical points in Singapore (eg Camps , government nerve centres ) and some mobile launchers to be deployed overseas or around Singapore. I believe a network of Barak 16-cell SAMs around Singapore will provide adequete capacity to down most of the air threat in the region , while I-Hawk or heavier missile act as the front line.
Back to the topic , anyone in the Navy know y the Mindef still retain the Mistral or anyone have any idea how reliable the Mistral be in drowning sea-skimming missiles ? -
what I meant is that mistral is meant for point defense. Not for long range defense against cruise missiles.. for the following reasonsOriginally posted by laser51088:Cos a carrier got other ships protecting it, and in terms of air defence, its fighters are supposed to take care of it! Mistral is seriously lacking in range and capability. . ., if any enemy launches an anti-ship missile at the Mistral armed ships, they might as well sit there and wait to die. . . .
1) Fearless PC are supposed to be steath and connot be detected at cruise missiles max range
2) Fearless class PC are supposed to protect our coast and will probably fight with other Patrol craft armed with within the horizon weapons like the sea skua. which can be stopped using the mistral
3) Why only a 2 cell launcher is another question I wish to ask RSN.. My guess is the 6 cell laucher is too large for it. Or if it can be manually fitted when necessary, RSN can unveil its capability at the time of need -
pardon me I must have misread the dcn webpageOriginally posted by foxtrout8:For wat i know , the Sadral system isnt manual launch so comparing it to the manually launch Simbad , the six cell is a much reliable one. However still i find that the 4 km range missile have to be replace by one with longer range to increase reliability.
I think u made a mistake , the Simbad is Twin-celled while the Sadral is Six-celled . -
for ur first point......> huh?Originally posted by Matlaysia:what I meant is that mistral is meant for point defense. Not for long range defense against cruise missiles.. for the following reasons
1) Fearless PC are supposed to be steath and connot be detected at cruise missiles max range
2) Fearless class PC are supposed to protect our coast and will probably fight with other Patrol craft armed with within the horizon weapons like the sea skua. which can be stopped using the mistral
3) Why only a 2 cell launcher is another question I wish to ask RSN.. My guess is the 6 cell laucher is too large for it. Or if it can be manually fitted when necessary, RSN can unveil its capability at the time of need
Yes the Mistral can stop a Skua , but isnt it risky??? It is manually launch and u have to see the missile coming.... If the Mistral is to protect a ship designed for littoral defense , then are u trying to state that the MGBs are for littoral defense too.
The onli reason i can think of is that , the PVs and the MGBs will be accompanied by a MCV which will provide frontline defence agaisnt SSMs , however wont that increase the workload of our 6 MGBs???
The six celled launcher is better as it is controlled by infra-red carmera and target aqquisation device for all weather operation. -
ermh... i think it is ok lor...
they are to be phased out soon enuf...
furthermore RSN ship dun do mission alone right?
as a task force, i think the bigger brothers armed with barak should do the job well enuf in protecting the whole taskforce...
as for the mistral i think is for close interception on aircrafts...
by the way if barak radar cannot pick up the signature, all is gone..
if it does, the mistral units can have a rough bearing to point to... -
Reason is so simple, $$$.
Cut cost.
If u have $$$$$, u can even have aster 15,30,80...... -
According to a story from Australia RSN and the Fearless class PCs are 'brown water' crafts and are meant to operate under an air defense umbrella???
what I meant is that mistral is meant for point defense. Not for long range defense against cruise missiles.. for the following reasons
1) Fearless PC are supposed to be steath and connot be detected at cruise missiles max range
2) Fearless class PC are supposed to protect our coast and will probably fight with other Patrol craft armed with within the horizon weapons like the sea skua. which can be stopped using the mistral
3) Why only a 2 cell launcher is another question I wish to ask RSN.. My guess is the 6 cell laucher is too large for it. Or if it can be manually fitted when necessary, RSN can unveil its capability at the time of need
I wonder if a cruise missile will be able to fly it's way around the Malacca and Singapore straits with all the other vessels around.....maybe hard to identify a PC amidst the tankers etc.
Mistral is not the only answer to the cruise missile threat. ECM can help too. Does all cruise missiles use radar altimeters? Or are there other alternatives Eg laser? -
Its a story or a report???Originally posted by buzz:According to a story from Australia RSN and the Fearless class PCs are 'brown water' crafts and are meant to operate under an air defense umbrella???
I wonder if a cruise missile will be able to fly it's way around the Malacca and Singapore straits with all the other vessels around.....maybe hard to identify a PC amidst the tankers etc.
Mistral is not the only answer to the cruise missile threat. ECM can help too. Does all cruise missiles use radar altimeters? Or are there other alternatives Eg laser?
I will find that ships performing littoral defense isnt immuned from air attack. The fact is that the Mistral isnt reliable enough to down an imcoming missile and supersonic speed.
If wat u assume is correct , then isnt Mindef playing with luck. If there is no attack on the PVs , good for u. If there is an attack , god bless u?? Then wat abt our MGB which are the second combatant on our strike list , littoral defence??
One could argue that because their operation are escorted by the MCVs , thus a true-blue missile defence system ( which jus cost alittle bit more ) isnt needed. But lets say , all the PVs and MGBs are armed with 8 cellled Baraks , it will lower the workload of the MCVs which is an advantage. Isnt it??? -
No one ask u to get the Aster for those ship. RAM or Barak which are lighter and cheaper will do........Originally posted by Anza Andy:Reason is so simple, $$$.
Cut cost.
If u have $$$$$, u can even have aster 15,30,80......