Navies
-
Well if you travel by helicopter, it's not that far. You know oil riggers get to do 2 weeks each time they land on a rig.Originally posted by spencer99:I then to dis-agree. I think Sgp should keep our presence in PB as "civilian" as possible. Although I am sure that the "navigation radar" on the island (visible in public domain), have military uses such as having visibility and early warning from threats arising from West Malaysia's East Coast and the South China Sea, it looks very civilian with its white and red stripes. I think we should keep it that way as I don't think it will help our cause (legal wise) if we are fighting the ownership of the island just to convert to a naval base. We are basing on the fact that we have been assisting navigation on the island for upteem years.
Anyway the island is really very small, what can we do that. Even if have a space for a base there, it would be miserable posting as it will be so far away from the mainland and will not have any recreational facilities.
Sensors not limited to just navigation radar....btw I wonder if the Ericcson surveillance radar is still there? Also there is a thermal camera.....but more interesting would be a Singapore version of SOSUS (spelling?).
IMHO it's a very important node not just for navigation but ..... -
It seems that one of the greatest threats to a submerged submarine is that from the ASW aircraft. As for the traditional surface fleet, the submarine can counter this threat by torpedoes,mines even anti-ship missiles. However the only thing that the submarine can do if contacted by aircraft is to run and hide! Theres seems no way for the sub to fight back. Maybe someone from the navy can enlighten me on why is should an obvious problem is not rectified. Thanks
-
some submarines like the russian kilo class can carry vertical launch SAMs in the sail. i guess it's risky though having to come so near to the surface to launch. perhaps they have some underwater float/booster like sub-harpoon
-
Originally posted by Paladin:Would RSN be considering building own new sub? Just like the new frigates? It would be nice if the new sub can carry some anti-ship missle beside torpedos... vertical launch type.. fire from below water surface.. that will cool
vertical launch?? our subs have anti-ship missiles. i think ur 'vertical launch' was referring to ballistic warheads? -
Does submarines even have radar or something else to aim those SAMs at their targets?Originally posted by wd1:some submarines like the russian kilo class can carry vertical launch SAMs in the sail. i guess it's risky though having to come so near to the surface to launch. perhaps they have some underwater float/booster like sub-harpoon -
the SAMs i think are mainly adapted MANPADS missiles(SA-14?), and hence are mainly IR-guided. to aim the SAMs the sub will prob use the periscope and mast radars, and aeroplanes/choppers are so loud they can easily be heard by passive sonar.Originally posted by LXC:Does submarines even have radar or something else to aim those SAMs at their targets?
actually the missiles' IR guidance means u just need to point or turn the missiles to the approximate direction for them to get a lock. so periscope and passive sonar will be good enuf, dont really need radar. hmm btw im not exactly sure of details and the missiles may actually be in the sub's fin near the propeller. not sure. -
It may interest you to know that america basically jumped off from step 3 immediately.After all, they did build CV-1 Langley.Originally posted by spencer99:Moskova (spelling) - helicopter carrier
Kiev - slanted deck carrier with both rotary and VStOL aircraft
Kurtxxxx (spelling) - full fledge carrier -
The Soviet navy did not think of carriers in the american sense, in fact the term they use is "Tyazholiy avionosyy kreyser" translated as Heavy aircraft carrying cruiser.Originally posted by YourFather:(papa of all carriers, the Nimitz class) .
Not even the Soviet fleet was a carrier power, even at its peak. This was due to the thinking of one particular admiral (can't remember his name) who didn't believe in carriers....
That was done both to circumvent Turkey, and also because the aircraft was regarded as secondary armament.
Also, contrary to popular thinking, Admiral Gorshkov did not singlehandedly reinvent the Soviet Navy. Notice that throughout the history of the Soviet Union, the submarine arm was always stronger?
Just at that particular moment in time, did the Typhoon, Delta really start coming in, and Gorshkov was given the go-ahead to build escorts for them.
And also to correct a popular misconception. The Nitmitz class is not the father of all carriers. Rather, the USN evolved slowly, all the way from WWII era Essex class CVs, to Midway class, and the first "supercarriers" Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger, and Independence.
CVN 65 Enterprise, the first nuclear carrier, and then, the Nitmitz.
-
The name you are looking for is Varyag.Originally posted by |-|05|:The Russian had a carrier....name started with a V...sold it to China.(Valkriye or something? cant remember)The Thai carrier is frm Spain...which i believe a few other counties have bought also.Anyway the other main problem with big carriers other then design is it's powerplant.Not many countries have Nuclear abilities and even less have the ability to put that on a ship!!Infact the Charles de Gulle had problems with it's powerplant all through it's life that was only fixed in the 2nd ship!
Already china has 2 carrier hulks, namely Novorossiysk, and the ex-HMAS Melbourne.
Negative on the "other countries", Thailand ordered a custom made carrier. And Germany was the designer, spain the builder.
And by the way, the French still only have Charles De Gaulle, that one nuclear powered carrier. -
The Soviets have manportable sam positions on certain submarines, namely the Typhoon, Sierra I/II and Akula class.Originally posted by tankee1981:Theres seems no way for the sub to fight back. Maybe someone from the navy can enlighten me on why is should an obvious problem is not rectified. Thanks
In theory, your supposed to surface and shoot.
In practice... who knows? -
it is a good question but i dun think subs can do anything much if being detected by ASW aircraft... Think they can somehow hide and run away by going further underwater like said from 10m to 20m n further below sea level, but the regional waters surrounding sg aren't really deep. Anyway, ASW aircraft r the best way to detect a sub n the sub may not even know they are being targeted... However, the ASW aircraft, eg. helo's endurance are somehow limited, so maybe the sub n do a run n chase scenario but dunno how practical it would be for a conventional sub to do this, but a nuclear powered sub maybe able to run away due to their speed n endurance....Originally posted by tankee1981:It seems that one of the greatest threats to a submerged submarine is that from the ASW aircraft. As for the traditional surface fleet, the submarine can counter this threat by torpedoes,mines even anti-ship missiles. However the only thing that the submarine can do if contacted by aircraft is to run and hide! Theres seems no way for the sub to fight back. Maybe someone from the navy can enlighten me on why is should an obvious problem is not rectified. Thanks -
should be 631 Torps i think...Originally posted by Fairyland:The Sjoormens have two type of torpedo tubes.....4x 533mm tubes for Type 613 heavy weight torpedoes and 2x 400mm tubes for Type 413 light torpedoes.
The 613 is for anti-shipping purposes while the 413 is anti-sub purposes.
Singapore has got only the Type 613 torpedoes from public domain. I think they plan to use their AS244 Whitehead torps for the 400mm. -
No...the new carrier....the 2nd of the class has the power plant fixed but i read that years ago and i'm not sure if it is true.The Clemeceau i believe had alot of other problems.Originally posted by eurofighter:You mean the Clemenceau class carriers? Cos the Charles De Gaulle is still rather young and it's sister ship is still on the drawing board. But both the Foch and Clemenceau carriers are powered conventionally. -
Ahh yes that's the name.Originally posted by Johnston:The name you are looking for is Varyag.
Already china has 2 carrier hulks, namely Novorossiysk, and the ex-HMAS Melbourne.
Negative on the "other countries", Thailand ordered a custom made carrier. And Germany was the designer, spain the builder.
And by the way, the French still only have Charles De Gaulle, that one nuclear powered carrier.
And yea i know the Charles De Gaulle is the only French carrier after they reitred the other one a couple of years ago.And i did read somewhere they had problems with the powerplant for the Carrier that was fixed in the 2nd ship of the class.
Anyway while aircraft are good at ASW duties they just take too long and cannot stay in the area long enough.They are usually used to drop torps after the target has been found by other ships as they are much faster to the area then ships and cannot be targeted. -
What moves faster, a helo/ASW aircraft or a ASW ship?
Answer: The aircraft.
The way to keep subs away from your precious CVN is to use lots of helos and ASW aircraft to patrol the area, dropping sonobouys, and trying their dammendest to locate any enemy subs. If you got the ships, then perhaps organize dedicated ASW ship groups.
And of course, your two SSNs also working to keep any subs away..... far far away, beyond even TLAM-N range.
Well, no aircraft can stay up forever, so that's what aerial refuelling is for.
Hell, America's NEACP can stay up forever if it's refueled (oil permitting). -
Depends. A helo, if well piloted and fitted with fuel tanks can stay aloft for a LONG time.Originally posted by |-|05|:Anyway while aircraft are good at ASW duties they just take too long and cannot stay in the area long enough.They are usually used to drop torps after the target has been found by other ships as they are much faster to the area then ships and cannot be targeted.
And any ASW ships attached to the battle group, say for example Oliver Hazard Perry frigates, will prosecute targets in support of their helo. Usually, if only the ship engages the sub, that means that the ASW screen is lax, or the sub driver is DAMN good. -
Sonobuoys may not be as effective as a variable depth dunking sonar as deployed by helicopters. In shallow littorial waters, maybe sonobuoys is good enough?Originally posted by Johnston:Depends. A helo, if well piloted and fitted with fuel tanks can stay aloft for a LONG time.
And any ASW ships attached to the battle group, say for example Oliver Hazard Perry frigates, will prosecute targets in support of their helo. Usually, if only the ship engages the sub, that means that the ASW screen is lax, or the sub driver is DAMN good.
I'm not so sure the answer is so clear cut and that's where even RSN is learning I believe though I think they are up there in the curve already.
I think even USN also not there yet. -
Your talking about the country that literally built a SSN from scratch, and without any incidents to boot.Originally posted by Fairyland:I'm not so sure the answer is so clear cut and that's where even RSN is learning I believe though I think they are up there in the curve already.
I think even USN also not there yet.
A country that sank the CV Shinano.
A country that dogged the Soviet Navy through the cold war years, hunting both their boomers and harrasing their fast-attacks.
A country, that today, has quite possibly the best SSN in the form of the Seawolf class.
Even today, you can be sure that a 688 is watching over any Red SSBN that deploys for a patrol.
USN? Not there yet in terms of knowledge? They were hunting sharks when we were looking at fighting fish. -
Our subs are armed with anti-ship missiles? What type? No one mention before leh...Originally posted by Groovee: vertical launch?? our subs have anti-ship missiles. i think ur 'vertical launch' was referring to ballistic warheads?
No I'm not refering to ballistic missiles. Just anti-ship missile which can be launch from subs.. -
SSK or SSN?Originally posted by Johnston:Your talking about the country that literally built a SSN from scratch, and without any incidents to boot.
A country that sank the CV Shinano.
A country that dogged the Soviet Navy through the cold war years, hunting both their boomers and harrasing their fast-attacks.
A country, that today, has quite possibly the best SSN in the form of the Seawolf class.
Even today, you can be sure that a 688 is watching over any Red SSBN that deploys for a patrol.
USN? Not there yet in terms of knowledge? They were hunting sharks when we were looking at fighting fish.
Anyway the they have lost a few subs along the way.....infact 1 of their 1st few SSN's was lost when the reactor shut down and the sub sank.Another sub simply blew up reason unknown though officially it was that a torp it fired was activated too early and came back and blew it up. -
What of K-19?Originally posted by |-|05|:SSK or SSN?
Anyway the they have lost a few subs along the way.....infact 1 of their 1st few SSN's was lost when the reactor shut down and the sub sank.Another sub simply blew up reason unknown though officially it was that a torp it fired was activated too early and came back and blew it up.
K-219 Yankee?
Mike class SSN?
The Kursk?
And the Echo II class that collided with another US sub?
Delta colliding with a 688?
And how many subs have the americans lost? Not too many.
And none lost due to a missile incident like what happened on board K-219.
All thanks to the hard work put in by Admiral Hyman Rickover.
Who has more experience in operating subs?
You tell me.
It might be interesting for you to read "blind man's bluff" a book on cold war espionage involving submarines. -
Thinks hard.... really hard.Originally posted by Paladin:Our subs are armed with anti-ship missiles? What type? No one mention before leh...
No I'm not refering to ballistic missiles. Just anti-ship missile which can be launch from subs..
Ok first off we have Sub-Harpoon. basically AGM-84 Harpoon in capsule which are launched from tubes normally, breaks surface, and acts like a SSM.
Next, we have the SS-N-15/16/21 series of ASROC/Cruise missile.
SS-N-15 "Starfish" Nuclear ASROC
SS-N-16 "Stallion" ASROC
SS-N-21 "Sampson" cruise missile
(Present on Akula, Sierra and late flight Victor III SSNs)
SS-N-19 "Shipwreck" heavy cruise missile
(Present on Oscar I/II class SSGNs)
SS-N-9 cruise missiles
SS-N-7 cruise missiles
(Present on Charlie I/II, Papa class SSGNs)
SS-N-3 "Shaddock"
(Present on Echo class SSGs"
Thats all i can remember. I am very heavily biased towards Soviet hardware. -
And on another note,
The Alfa class SSN, supposed to be a super-fast, titanium hulled fast attack submarine, was a complete failure, and never really ran any real missions.
November class SSNs, a total flop
ditto for Victor I and II.
Only starting with Victor III, Sierra, and Akula did the Soviet Navy even approach parity with the USN.
Compare that with the stellar records of america's Sturgeons, Los Angeles, and Seawolves.
Who is THE authority on nuclear subs? -
Sorry.....but I don't recall we have Sub-Harpoon leh.Originally posted by Johnston:Thinks hard.... really hard.
Ok first off we have Sub-Harpoon. basically AGM-84 Harpoon in capsule which are launched from tubes normally, breaks surface, and acts like a SSM. -
No, we actually have Tomahawk-N Lite.
533mm nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
CAN YOU READ THE POST AND MY ANSWER?
The question was "What kind of anti-ship missiles can be fired from submarines, excluding SLBMs?"
Did i say that we, as in RSN have sub-harpoon, or SUBROC?
GEEZ.