Stealth warships to form core of Singapore navy
-
Hmm Gary , u pose a good and difficult question that questions the defination on expeditory force.Originally posted by gary1910:What I define as regional is depend on the range of our fighters wif the most one refuelling from tankers, any further away from where our a/c able to reach means no air cover & AWAC support for our fleet. As i reply to laser, if our enemy have AWACs and therefore could target our ships over horizon and we can't , it certainly dun look good for us especially if the enemy a/c joined into the fight as well.
I had stated that my defination of a expeditory force is a force that can spread her military influence away from her shores , her region to protect her interest. How much power and how far from her shores is dependent on how much the govt willing to invest in. I had also stated that our 2015 capability of senting a significant amount of ships and power for peacekeeping mission anywhere on the globe is already a form of power projection and force expedition. I believe thats wat JDW mean too.
I will also like to tell u that not all naval projection is so intense that it require fighter cover for it. I believe a fleet of 6 Frigates and 3 Destroyers can be potent enough to ward off any potiential threat which we can think of any we patrol the seas.
On the over horizon thing..lol , u must have forgotten that our ship is steathy. A detection from a range of 200 to 300 is doubtful. -
Sorry wd1, I lost the website already
, this is a passage I saved on my com... I put out this passage in the hope that we can understand not everything is what it seems to be... there is a reason why Harpoon and exocet. both being subsonic, are the most popular ASMs around.......
Also, even though the Harpoon Block II wasn't adopted by the USN, it seems that they are researching in a further upgraded Harpoon.. -
it was a very gd article...
but cant help but notice that neither harpoon nor exocet have backup IR guidance or RCS reduction features...
i dont think SLAM-ER is good vs moving ships in the open sea rite? -
I think most of us have realised by now that United States Navy's doctrine on sea warfare is somewhat different from most of the smaller Navies.
USN does not rely on ship-launched Harpoons alone. They have sub-launched and air-launched versions as well. Furthermore, ever since Battle of Coral Sea and Battle of Midway in WWII, USN viewed the ultimate Sea Power revolves around Carrier Battle Groups. The fact that aircraft carriers have longer strike range than any type of Surface to Surface missiles pretty much convinced USN that nothing today can beat having man-plaforms throwing lots of guided munition and standoff weapons at you. One can argue that it is far easier to down an ASM than a guided standoff munition like Popeye or JDAM.
Furthermore, before a ship or an aircraft can reach the firing range of a supersonic ASM like Sunburn, the CAP Tomcats or Super Bugs should be able to effectively deal with it.
Thus, upgrading of Harpoon become less of an incentive. Upgrading to Block 2B Harpoon also may not be viewed as cost-effective.
However, to Navies that have no carrier battle groups or even a Helicopter carrier, having long range ASMs become viable solution, especially one that can perform land attack as well.
Just my 2 cents. -
I think most of us have realised by now that United States Navy's doctrine on sea warfare is somewhat different from most of the smaller Navies.
USN does not rely on ship-launched Harpoons alone. They have sub-launched and air-launched versions as well. Furthermore, ever since Battle of Coral Sea and Battle of Midway in WWII, USN viewed the ultimate Sea Power revolves around Carrier Battle Groups. The fact that aircraft carriers have longer strike range than any type of Surface to Surface missiles pretty much convinced USN that nothing today can beat having man-plaforms throwing lots of guided munition and standoff weapons at you. One can argue that it is far easier to down an ASM than a guided standoff munition like Popeye or JDAM.
Furthermore, before a ship or an aircraft can reach the firing range of a supersonic ASM like Sunburn, the CAP Tomcats or Super Bugs should be able to effectively deal with it.
Thus, upgrading of Harpoon become less of an incentive. Upgrading to Block 2B Harpoon also may not be viewed as cost-effective.
However, to Navies that have no carrier battle groups or even a Helicopter carrier, having long range ASMs become viable solution, especially one that can perform land attack as well.
Just my 2 cents. -
I think most of us have realised by now that United States Navy's doctrine on sea warfare is somewhat different from most of the smaller Navies.
Different? I believe there are differences in doctrine , but i dun see a difference in weapon confriguration in most of the allied navies and the smaller navies which follow their confriguration.
It is standard to have 8 SSM ( Harpoon/Exocet ) as their arm confriguration for most of the European Navies , the Asian Navies and the North American Navies. Did they not realise that their doctrine are different from that of the USN or there is no need for other confriguration??The fact that aircraft carriers have longer strike range than any type of Surface to Surface missiles pretty much convinced USN that nothing today can beat having man-plaforms throwing lots of guided munition and standoff weapons at you.
Under ur impression , are u trying to say that in the USN , the Harpoon ain the primary naval Weapon?U must know that not ever deployment of the USN involve carriers. So how are u going to argue that their combatant dun rely on the Harpoon as their primary naval spear?One can argue that it is far easier to down an ASM than a guided standoff munition like Popeye or JDAM.
JDAM? It is a unpowered bomb ( i dun think it is a stand off weapon ) and i believe it is far easy to shoot down a JDAM then a ASM. There had been reports that Sea wolf SAM can shoot down artillery shells.Thus, upgrading of Harpoon become less of an incentive. Upgrading to Block 2B Harpoon also may not be viewed as cost-effective.
The Harpoon Bk2 is answer to navies who cant afford seaborne cruisemissiles. Therefor i see the Harpoon Bk2 a very good industrial strategy which allow Boeing to secure more deals in the market of Navies not using the Harpoon before and the market of Navies who uses the Harpoon Bk1.However, to Navies that have no carrier battle groups or even a Helicopter carrier, having long range ASMs become viable solution, especially one that can perform land attack as well.
I dun see most of the world doing that. Their answer to a lack of air support is to use stealth as a mean to avoid detection and therefore increase their lethal capability. U must know that if the enemy cant detect u , how long ranged her ASM be , they can engage u. -
Actually it depends...in a war time scn it is possible however in peace time or high tension moments the CBG can only engage in a 100mile zone around the carrier(standard ROE of USN)Thing here is.....the Tu-22's that carry the Sunburns fly at Mach 1.5 or more.Meaning when they bust through the line in the 2 secs u take to do anything they fly 10miles and fire their missles...after which the bugs and the SM2's will HAVE to target the SS-20's which will be flying at super sonic speed meaning it's going to burst through the engagement zone pretty quickly.That's is the russian way of doing it....hit it fast and hard.Originally posted by Joe Black:I think most of us have realised by now that United States Navy's doctrine on sea warfare is somewhat different from most of the smaller Navies.
USN does not rely on ship-launched Harpoons alone. They have sub-launched and air-launched versions as well. Furthermore, ever since Battle of Coral Sea and Battle of Midway in WWII, USN viewed the ultimate Sea Power revolves around Carrier Battle Groups. The fact that aircraft carriers have longer strike range than any type of Surface to Surface missiles pretty much convinced USN that nothing today can beat having man-plaforms throwing lots of guided munition and standoff weapons at you. One can argue that it is far easier to down an ASM than a guided standoff munition like Popeye or JDAM.
Furthermore, before a ship or an aircraft can reach the firing range of a supersonic ASM like Sunburn, the CAP Tomcats or Super Bugs should be able to effectively deal with it.
Thus, upgrading of Harpoon become less of an incentive. Upgrading to Block 2B Harpoon also may not be viewed as cost-effective.
However, to Navies that have no carrier battle groups or even a Helicopter carrier, having long range ASMs become viable solution, especially one that can perform land attack as well.
Just my 2 cents.
Something like the harpoon will be fire from far far out....but it be detached till it is around 40 odd miles?
Both have pro's and con's depending on doctrine i guess.
But i would like to add that the harpoon is a short range air launched weapon that has been upgraded for sea use.The US uses it's Tamahawk missiles for ship to ship engagements more since they have better range....alot better range -
was it ever? AFAIK harpoon was a purpose-designed ship-to-ship missile first, only then adapted for air launch. the designers could well have had air launch in mind, but harpoon was primarily meant for ship use.Originally posted by |-|05|:But i would like to add that the harpoon is a short range air launched weapon that has been upgraded for sea use.The US uses it's Tamahawk missiles for ship to ship engagements more since they have better range....alot better range
and neither is it short ranged by any means. perhaps only when u compare it wif sunburn or tomahawk...
as for the tomahawks, it was only practical to use if u had a good idea of where the enemy ship would be after the missile had travelled a few hundred miles at subsonic speed. which works out to at least half an hour... more than enuf time for the enemy to make a lucky turn out of the missile's seeker range.
foxtrout8... sorry to cut in, but if u were any sensible admiral would u have ur big warships running arnd without ASMs even if u had powerful carriers? especially when ur ships are big cruisers, destroyers or frigs and have more than enough space for 8 harpoons.
antiship just isnt the primary mission of USN non-carrier ships. aegis cruisers wif 20 times the displacement of our MCVs carry the same number of harpoons, and their Perry-class frigate only has 4 harpoons. USN doctrine is indeed different from other navies, but that dont mean they dont mount harpoons on their ships when it wont hurt to do so.
and ure right, the harpoon is indeed their main naval spear. all those guided munitions joeblack toks abt (in an antiship context) are harpoons launched from F-18s. tell me the harpoon is an unguided munition... -
Ar.... Wd1 , im not sure on wat u mean in ur statement. Do u wanna rephrase it? Thx , because i dont wanna jump into my opinion without knowing wat direction u are in. Thx.Originally posted by wd1:foxtrout8... sorry to cut in, but if u were any sensible admiral would u have ur big warships running arnd without ASMs even if u had powerful carriers? especially when ur ships are big cruisers, destroyers or frigs and have more than enough space for 8 harpoons.
antiship just isnt the primary mission of USN non-carrier ships. aegis cruisers wif 20 times the displacement of our MCVs carry the same number of harpoons, and their Perry-class frigate only has 4 harpoons. USN doctrine is indeed different from other navies, but that dont mean they dont mount harpoons on their ships when it wont hurt to do so.
and ure right, the harpoon is indeed their main naval spear. all those guided munitions joeblack toks abt (in an antiship context) are harpoons launched from F-18s. tell me the harpoon is an unguided munition... -
Ar.... Wd1 , im not sure on wat u mean in ur statement. Do u wanna rephrase it? Thx , because i dont wanna jump into my opinion without knowing wat direction u are in. Thx.Originally posted by wd1:foxtrout8... sorry to cut in, but if u were any sensible admiral would u have ur big warships running arnd without ASMs even if u had powerful carriers? especially when ur ships are big cruisers, destroyers or frigs and have more than enough space for 8 harpoons.
antiship just isnt the primary mission of USN non-carrier ships. aegis cruisers wif 20 times the displacement of our MCVs carry the same number of harpoons, and their Perry-class frigate only has 4 harpoons. USN doctrine is indeed different from other navies, but that dont mean they dont mount harpoons on their ships when it wont hurt to do so.
and ure right, the harpoon is indeed their main naval spear. all those guided munitions joeblack toks abt (in an antiship context) are harpoons launched from F-18s. tell me the harpoon is an unguided munition... -
in ur post u seemed to say that having a different doctrine meant that their harpoon loads would be different.
i just meant that the main role of USN escorts is fleet air defense, antisubmarine and tomahawk shooting etc, not really antiship which is borne mainly by carrier planes
thus USN ships carry fewer harpoons than other navies' ships (eg our MCV) relative to their size... (aegis and MCV have same harpoon load but the size is 20 times different)
their harpoons are more for use when no planes are around or on targets of opportunity...
havent heard of USN ships ever firing their harpoons in anger.
also that the "guided munitions and standoff weapons" joeblack mentioned were indeed harpoons, not JDAMs. -
in ur post u seemed to say that having a different doctrine meant that their harpoon loads would be different.
Did i? Read again.i just meant that the main role of USN escorts is fleet air defense, antisubmarine and tomahawk shooting etc, not really antiship which is borne mainly by carrier planes
Yesh i know , but if u read by previous post real properly , i stated that not all naval deployment of the USN include carriers , thus how are USN combatant going to defend themselve if their deployment didnt include a carrier (base on ur arguement that the antiship role is borne by carrier planes)?
So in conclusion , i agree that aircrafts are the main anti-shipping medium to sink enemy ships but onli in a carrier fleet. To be precise , the Harpoon is still the primary Anti-ship Missile of the US Navy Ships.thus USN ships carry fewer harpoons than other navies' ships (eg our MCV) relative to their size... (aegis and MCV have same harpoon load but the size is 20 times different)
I dun understand. A Burke class carry 8 Harpoon which is the same with our MCV. Ur arguement that USN carry fewer harpoons is wrong but then u didnt stop and say that 'aegis and MCV have same harpoon load'. Isnt that a contridiction?their harpoons are more for use when no planes are around or on targets of opportunity...
Yah so am i right to say that the Harpoon is the main ASM of the USN ships? Note that i didnt say the main Anti-shipping medium of USN carrier fleet.havent heard of USN ships ever firing their harpoons in anger.
Not that i know .also that the "guided munitions and standoff weapons" joeblack mentioned were indeed harpoons, not JDAMs.
U read again. His sentence structure is susgesting that JDAMs and Popeye are stand-off guided weapons which are hard to shoot down. Base on my knowledge , JDAM is not a stand off weapon and it is relative easy to shoot down ( base on the fact that JDAM is a unpowered munition and SAMs were proven to be able to shoot down 155mm round ).
Quote from Joeblack : ''One can argue that it is far easier to down an ASM than a guided standoff munition like Popeye or JDAM.'' -
I am a complete amateur when it comes to maritime defense and therefore have exactly no idea what fox's or gary's ideas of "true blue-water capability", "expeditionary" or "required fleet ORBAT is" (I am in awe of the two heavyweight's knowledge in these matters)
But I always believed that how capable or good a navy is not just measured in terms of big guns or exotic missiles but also by logistical support on the move. And how far a navy or armed forces for that matter can boast an expeditionary force depends on how robust the logistical support is.
Fox, gary - can anyone of you enlighten this old-fashioned and out of tuned amateur on what are the logistical capability of the RSN? I belief that by establishing the fleet's LSV ORBAT and capabilities will answer quite adequately whether the RSN has what it takes to form an expeditionary force in the near future. -
Friend , u are no out of fashion amature. Ur opinion bear weight to our discussion here.Originally posted by Laplace:I am a complete amateur when it comes to maritime defense and therefore have exactly no idea what fox's or gary's ideas of "true blue-water capability", "expeditionary" or "required fleet ORBAT is" (I am in awe of the two heavyweight's knowledge in these matters)
But I always believed that how capable or good a navy is not just measured in terms of big guns or exotic missiles but also by logistical support on the move. And how far a navy or armed forces for that matter can boast an expeditionary force depends on how robust the logistical support is.
Fox, gary - can anyone of you enlighten this old-fashioned and out of tuned amateur on what are the logistical capability of the RSN? I belief that by establishing the fleet's LSV ORBAT and capabilities will answer quite adequately whether the RSN has what it takes to form an expeditionary force in the near future.
Im having my O's tml and i will like to share my opinion with u later on , perhaps tml. Maybe u will like to hear Gary's opinion first.
Cheers. -
AFAIK RSN does not operate any support ships, but during a crisis, support boat/ships like tugboat, merchant vessels etc will be requested via Civil resource requisition exercises thru open or silent mobilisation. They will then be manned by NS men of former RSN's regulars & NSF of RSN which will be formed the 192 & 193 sqn of the RSN. They have annual ICT just to get familiar with their boat/ships.Originally posted by Laplace:I am a complete amateur when it comes to maritime defense and therefore have exactly no idea what fox's or gary's ideas of "true blue-water capability", "expeditionary" or "required fleet ORBAT is" (I am in awe of the two heavyweight's knowledge in these matters)
But I always believed that how capable or good a navy is not just measured in terms of big guns or exotic missiles but also by logistical support on the move. And how far a navy or armed forces for that matter can boast an expeditionary force depends on how robust the logistical support is.
Fox, gary - can anyone of you enlighten this old-fashioned and out of tuned amateur on what are the logistical capability of the RSN? I belief that by establishing the fleet's LSV ORBAT and capabilities will answer quite adequately whether the RSN has what it takes to form an expeditionary force in the near future.
To what extent the requisition is I really have no idea except I am sure some tugboat,some merchant vessels for replenishment.
I hope my reply could ans yr qn. -
I think the point is that for the US Navy, the structure of the navy itself is centred on the carrier battlegroups. The harpoon armed ships are secondary and in many cases serve as protection for the purpose of getting the carriers to their destination to unleash THEIR firepower.
Whereas for other navies the harpoons arm ships serve as flagships themselves. US navy doctrine is different cos it centres on getting the aircraft carrier into position. If a foreign force can prove itself readily capable of sinking an aircraft carrier despite the carrier's protection, it is doubtful that the US will send its navy or even a sizable naval force at all.
Thus, employment of the harpoon is with the expectation that it will operate together with other weapons system with the purpose of killing the same target. -
The harpoon is their primary ship to ship missile however it's range is medium....long range would be like the AS-4,the SS-20 and even the tomahwak.By the way the Tomahawk ship to ship is armed with a radar and GPS seeker head meaning it is the same as the harpoon when it comes to finding a target.It's usually lead there by an AWACS.Originally posted by wd1:was it ever? AFAIK harpoon was a purpose-designed ship-to-ship missile first, only then adapted for air launch. the designers could well have had air launch in mind, but harpoon was primarily meant for ship use.
and neither is it short ranged by any means. perhaps only when u compare it wif sunburn or tomahawk...
as for the tomahawks, it was only practical to use if u had a good idea of where the enemy ship would be after the missile had travelled a few hundred miles at subsonic speed. which works out to at least half an hour... more than enuf time for the enemy to make a lucky turn out of the missile's seeker range.
foxtrout8... sorry to cut in, but if u were any sensible admiral would u have ur big warships running arnd without ASMs even if u had powerful carriers? especially when ur ships are big cruisers, destroyers or frigs and have more than enough space for 8 harpoons.
antiship just isnt the primary mission of USN non-carrier ships. aegis cruisers wif 20 times the displacement of our MCVs carry the same number of harpoons, and their Perry-class frigate only has 4 harpoons. USN doctrine is indeed different from other navies, but that dont mean they dont mount harpoons on their ships when it wont hurt to do so.
and ure right, the harpoon is indeed their main naval spear. all those guided munitions joeblack toks abt (in an antiship context) are harpoons launched from F-18s. tell me the harpoon is an unguided munition...Yesh i know , but if u read by previous post real properly , i stated that not all naval deployment of the USN include carriers , thus how are USN combatant going to defend themselve if their deployment didnt include a carrier (base on ur arguement that the antiship role is borne by carrier planes)?
Actually the USN seldom depolys without air cover...be it airforce or navy planes.At the very least they try to keep a P-3 near it.It would be interesting to note that while they carry Harpoons they usually carry more Tomahawk SSM's into combat.Usually around 10.
So in conclusion , i agree that aircrafts are the main anti-shipping medium to sink enemy ships but onli in a carrier fleet. To be precise , the Harpoon is still the primary Anti-ship Missile of the US Navy Ships
Note the Tomahawk SSM is different frm the land version TLSC(or something like that)I think the only difference is the warhead.
AnywayI dun understand. A Burke class carry 8 Harpoon which is the same with our MCV. Ur arguement that USN carry fewer harpoons is wrong but then u didnt stop and say that 'aegis and MCV have same harpoon load'. Isnt that a contridiction?
What he meant to say is that at most the USN ships carry 8 harpoons.Which in terms of ratio is little compared to what our ships carry and their size!I mean a Crusier or Destroyer carrying the same number as an MCV when it can easily carry alot alot more.Yah so am i right to say that the Harpoon is the main ASM of the USN ships? Note that i didnt say the main Anti-shipping medium of USN carrier fleet.
Some sources i read say the penguin is the main anti shipping missole now....cuz it can be chopper launched though the harpoon is kept just incase.I think the point is that for the US Navy, the structure of the navy itself is centred on the carrier battlegroups. The harpoon armed ships are secondary and in many cases serve as protection for the purpose of getting the carriers to their destination to unleash THEIR firepower.
True...oh so true....but hardly anything can stand againest a USN CBG!!Especially when it has 2 carriers or more in it!!!
Whereas for other navies the harpoons arm ships serve as flagships themselves. US navy doctrine is different cos it centres on getting the aircraft carrier into position. If a foreign force can prove itself readily capable of sinking an aircraft carrier despite the carrier's protection, it is doubtful that the US will send its navy or even a sizable naval force at all.
Thus, employment of the harpoon is with the expectation that it will operate together with other weapons system with the purpose of killing the same target -
foxtrout8's taking Os!?
hey me too!!!
nice to noe there are fellow military enthusiasts in sg, esp at our age.
btw 05, tomahawk variants are as follows:
TASM - ship-attack version (tomahawk antiship missile)
TLAM (tomahawk land attack missile):
TLAM-C - 1000lb warhead
TLAM-D - bomblet dispersion warhead
TLAM-N - nuke warhead -
The ASM Tomahawk was retired a long time ago, as it was not practical to use...
-
Fox, thank you for your reassurance.
Gary, if the RSN depends on reacquisition of civilian maritime resources during wartime or when the need arises, then do you know whether there are any civilian resources comparable to fleet LSVs?
I should think that logistical support on high seas is tricky business and requires highly trained support crews with the right tools (i.e. specialized LSVs).
Thanks. -
I presume that you already know that the RSN operate four locally built Endurance class LPD,one ex-British Perseverance class LSL & two ex-USN County class LST. Details could be found on this website:Originally posted by Laplace:Fox, thank you for your reassurance.
Gary, if the RSN depends on reacquisition of civilian maritime resources during wartime or when the need arises, then do you know whether there are any civilian resources comparable to fleet LSVs?
I should think that logistical support on high seas is tricky business and requires highly trained support crews with the right tools (i.e. specialized LSVs).
Thanks.
http://www.hazegray.org/
All the above could be for used for expeditory force as well as logistics support especially the older LST.They r also I think 25 FCEP,4 RPL & 10 FCU for amphibious landing.
As for the logistics support ship & boats, I was actually refering to those dedicated support ship like tugboat , merchant vessels for store & ammo, oiler & other commercially available ships which I think it is not problem at all for SG as she has one of the biggest shipping liner . And they all r as critical as the LST for any expeditory force.
As for whether there are any Civil resources that resemble that of the LSTs, I dunno as I am not from the shipping line. Maybe some of you could answer that qn...... -
presume that you already know that the RSN operate four locally built Endurance class LPD,one ex-British Perseverance class LSL & two ex-USN County class LST. Details could be found on this website:
The four Endurance LST are build to replace the 4 Ex-country Class LST which had served 2 countries since world war 2.
http://www.hazegray.org/As for the logistics support ship & boats, I was actually refering to those dedicated support ship like tugboat , merchant vessels for store & ammo, oiler & other commercially available ships which I think it is not problem at all for SG as she has one of the biggest shipping liner .
Singapore is one country which really bang hard on total defense. I wont be surprise to know that we can convert a tanker or a large cargo ship into an aircraft carrier to support large scale helicopter operation as far as north of Malacca straits.
To lapice , Singapore do not need to rely alot on naval logistic support because our operation radius aint so big that we need such support. Even if we need one jus to support a longer patrol over our small operation radius , we can rely on our 4 LST and 4 F-50 to supply us to essiential rations and neccessities.
However in the future if Singapore will wanna be a potent expeditory force , she have to look into obtaining at least one logistic ship. I believe a logistic ship do not have to be build for the sole purpose of providing logistic like wat the USN can afford. For mi , if we wanna upgrade our logistic capability , another 2 Endurance LST will be enough.
Civil resource is a solution for providing naval logistic..but lets bear in mind , it can never be a long term solution if we wanna be an expeditory force. -
Heh have u seen ships being loaded out sea??it's bloody scary....But normal container ships can do it......i think some navies reley on normal merchant men to resupply their ships.Originally posted by foxtrout8:Singapore is one country which really bang hard on total defense. I wont be surprise to know that we can convert a tanker or a large cargo ship into an aircraft carrier to support large scale helicopter operation as far as north of Malacca straits.
To lapice , Singapore do not need to rely alot on naval logistic support because our operation radius aint so big that we need such support. Even if we need one jus to support a longer patrol over our small operation radius , we can rely on our 4 LST and 4 F-50 to supply us to essiential rations and neccessities.
However in the future if Singapore will wanna be a potent expeditory force , she have to look into obtaining at least one logistic ship. I believe a logistic ship do not have to be build for the sole purpose of providing logistic like wat the USN can afford. For mi , if we wanna upgrade our logistic capability , another 2 Endurance LST will be enough.
Civil resource is a solution for providing naval logistic..but lets bear in mind , it can never be a long term solution if we wanna be an expeditory force.
And to the guy who mentioned the Tamohawk thx for the clarification
-
For RSN and especially the smaller patrol crafts, even the Victory class....VERTREP Singapore style is also an option more so now with the Super Chinooks.Originally posted by |-|05|:Heh have u seen ships being loaded out sea??it's bloody scary....But normal container ships can do it......i think some navies reley on normal merchant men to resupply their ships.
And to the guy who mentioned the Tamohawk thx for the clarification
Granted refuelling is a challenge but I'm willing to bet that fuel bladder with diesel can be made to float in the sea. But the boats have to stop dead in the water to refuel though. -
Actually RSN & any navies has exercise on ship to ship transfer at sea for training. Commercial or miltary oilers r meant for refueling of ships at high sea.
CHARGE!!!