HMAS Rankin "sank" an unidentified Singaporean ASW ship
-
SUBMARINES: Aussie Collins-class Sub “Sinks” US Boat
December 13, 2003: Someone passing the Pentagon during the end of September would have noticed the lights burning brightly all night at the US Navy’s Submarine Directorate. An Australian Type 471 Collins-class diesel-electric submarine had just “sunk” an unidentified US Navy submarine (most likely a Los Angeles-class nuclear attack sub, which the US Navy asserts is superior to any other non-US sub in the world today). The diesel-powered Collins-class is relatively modest, with a submerged displacement of approximately 3,300 tons. The nuclear-powered Los Angeles-class -- designed to sink Soviet submarines during the Cold War -- is far more sophisticated and typically displaces over 6,900 tons submerged.
In late September HMAS Waller (S-75) had “sunk the pride of the US nuclear submarine fleet” with practice torpedoes during an unspecified exercise. HMAS Waller was launched in 2001. The RAN ordered six of these subs from Holland in 1987; the last – HMAS Rankin – was launched earlier this year. The class was designed by Swedish shipbuilders Kockums.
The US Navy has declined to identify the sub involved or provide details about the exercise. The unidentified US boat was “sunk” with a Mk 48 practice torpedo. Both RAN and USN subs use this weapon. Also during the exercise, Waller’s sister ship, HMAS Rankin, "sank" an unidentified Singaporean ASW ship.
to read more, visit http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htsub.htm -
[quote]Originally posted by kilroy:
Also during the exercise, WallerÂ’s sister ship, HMAS Rankin, "sank" an unidentified Singaporean ASW ship.
ozzie oberon-class subs wreaked havoc on the rsn fleet during exercises in the 80s. The development of the current fleet of ASW ships was one of those outcomes.
This is surely a blow the ASW dept. i wonder if this reflects a "fighting-the-last-war" mindset of rsn asw strategists? Perhaps it's time the rsn request that the indian navy let it fight against more advanced subs in their arsenal than just simply their aging foxtrots, as it has done for a decade already.
Anyway, kudos to the ozzie sub captains for their cunning and skill. Maybe rsn and ran should hang out together more
-
Forgive me if I sound pessimistic and too critical, but after reading all the fantastic details of the Rss Courageous trial, I've lost all respect for the RSN when it comes to "competence" and "professionalism"
Perhaps we are giving our armed forces too much credit when it comes to creditability. Perhaps the manpower starved SAF have been placing too much emphasis on logistical and technological superiority that we seem to have taken a back seat when it comes to personnel training and personnel quality.
Somehow I have a feeling that not having any "war-fighting" leaders heading the SAF is one main problem.
Like what a senior NCO in my unit once remarked off-hand; "Being a scholar only proves that you are good in reading thick textbooks and studying. Being able to command and lead in war is another matter altogether." -
u cant totally blame the whole of SAF, RSN, RSAF...there are always incompetent fools everywhere in this world..u cant deny that fact there are still accident in other military unit in this world?Originally posted by Laplace:Forgive me if I sound pessimistic and too critical, but after reading all the fantastic details of the Rss Courageous trial, I've lost all respect for the RSN when it comes to "competence" and "professionalism"
Perhaps we are giving our armed forces too much credit when it comes to creditability. Perhaps the manpower starved SAF have been placing too much emphasis on logistical and technological superiority that we seem to have taken a back seat when it comes to personnel training and personnel quality.
Somehow I have a feeling that not having any "war-fighting" leaders heading the SAF is one main problem.
Like what a senior NCO in my unit once remarked off-hand; "Being a scholar only proves that you are good in reading thick textbooks and studying. Being able to command and lead in war is another matter altogether."
good quote from your NCO..now the big question is..have your NCO been to any war..or command in war?? -
as war becomes more and more technologically sophisticated... you will need people who can gooble thick books and think in a technological realm that your NCO can only blink eyes non stop....
but of course... being able to gobble big books does not make one a good leader... but then... a good leader that cannot fully comprehend the new dimension of war cannot be an effective leader.... -
aiya..dun make sweeping statements la. lol but really, are our armed forces going into a decline or smth? an APV getting rammed by a cargo ship, RSAF helos crashing, servicemen dying, bla bla..sighOriginally posted by Laplace:Forgive me if I sound pessimistic and too critical, but after reading all the fantastic details of the Rss Courageous trial, I've lost all respect for the RSN when it comes to "competence" and "professionalism" -
Accidents are part and parcel of the military training and operations. It is regrettable that the SAF has so much accidents in the past year or so, but they have to learn the lessons from all this and move on, hopefully for the better.
Even the most established navies experienced such accidents from time to time..., read the USN and RN.
For eg, the RN has had accidents with their SSN and frigates either running aground or scrapping their hull. The most famous would be the HMS Nottingham that ran aground off Australia, and has to be piggybacked back to the UK. For the USN, remember USS Greenville, the SSN that rammed the japanese trawler/training vessel, resulting in a loss of lives on board the japanese vessel.
The question is did we learn our lessons, and how do we improve? Just like the USN learned from the experience of the horrendous accident of the cruiser USS Belknap resulting from a collision with the aircraft carrier USS John F Kennedy back in Nov'75.
That collision caused more than 15000 gallons of jet fuel being spilled onto the much smaller cruiser, creating a huge fire that melted away the Aluminium superstructure, and high casualties on the ship's crew. Well, the USN learnt the lessons of this tragic accident-the result, use of Aluminium was abandoned with practically the whole ship being made of steel- a good example being the Arleigh Burke class, which one of them, USS Cole, even survived a terrorist attack.
Lets hope Mindef learn from all these accidents, as well as those of other countries...
-
If there's 100m to spare and that's a BIG IF, then I say time to KIV SAF's hi tech hardware drive and deploy a professional ABG of some sorts.
With so many OR soldiers retrenched, the time maybe ripe to create a brigade to OIF to further Singapore's national interests and I think more importantly, fill SAF's ranks with some 'veterans'. Re-validate our tactics and organisation.
Who knows they may learn some lessons to better drive the techies in DSO/DSTA away from Star Wars......
You know the MAF bought M113s after they lost 13 guys in the Panhard vehicle to a RPG.
Of course SAF knew that 10 years before!
-
Come on loh i'm 18 and even i know that you have to turn starboard when heading head on with another ships and not port!!!!However i can see why the guy wanted to turn port though he should have gunned his engine to full speed ahead of flank speed for a few seconds to show the cargo ships his intentions!Originally posted by Laplace:Forgive me if I sound pessimistic and too critical, but after reading all the fantastic details of the Rss Courageous trial, I've lost all respect for the RSN when it comes to "competence" and "professionalism"
Perhaps we are giving our armed forces too much credit when it comes to creditability. Perhaps the manpower starved SAF have been placing too much emphasis on logistical and technological superiority that we seem to have taken a back seat when it comes to personnel training and personnel quality.
Somehow I have a feeling that not having any "war-fighting" leaders heading the SAF is one main problem.
Like what a senior NCO in my unit once remarked off-hand; "Being a scholar only proves that you are good in reading thick textbooks and studying. Being able to command and lead in war is another matter altogether." -
I fear that we may have plenty of "Lt. Dyke" type leaders in our military, who view their combat leading vocation as an annoyance and just something they have to get through to climb up the ladder...
-
A leader who sees the big picture without looking at the small picture, or having even been exposed to the small picture, is not a good leader either.Originally posted by tripwire:as war becomes more and more technologically sophisticated... you will need people who can gooble thick books and think in a technological realm that your NCO can only blink eyes non stop....
but of course... being able to gobble big books does not make one a good leader... but then... a good leader that cannot fully comprehend the new dimension of war cannot be an effective leader....
Remember the commanders who saw the battle from the screens on the Orion over Mogadishu on Oct 3 1993? They saw a convoy that was moving orderly through the streets towards Super-Six-One's crash site, but in actual fact the movement was soaked in blood and filled with men dying and cursing.
The current doctrine focuses too much on high-tech gizmos and gimmicks. As some have pointed out rightly, I fear this will lead to a false impression wars can be won from the computer room. They can't, someone still has to bleed, to die. The high-tech will merely be the means to an end. Not the end itself.
If we ever do find ourselves in a war, I fear many people are going to have a nasty surprise. -
haha yes..but isn't it a bit weird.. the courageous did a u-turn straight into the path of oncoming traffic before turning port? it could have turned starboard 90° out of the sea lane right away instead of doing a 270° (or so) turn to port..weird..anyone know the reason?Originally posted by |-|05|:Come on loh i'm 18 and even i know that you have to turn starboard when heading head on with another ships and not port!!!!However i can see why the guy wanted to turn port though he should have gunned his engine to full speed ahead of flank speed for a few seconds to show the cargo ships his intentions! -
Only one command need have been given.Originally posted by sgFish:haha yes..but isn't it a bit weird.. the courageous did a u-turn straight into the path of oncoming traffic before turning port? it could have turned starboard 90° out of the sea lane right away instead of doing a 270° (or so) turn to port..weird..anyone know the reason?
Right full rudder, all ahead flank! -
Could have u-turned to port and get into the right lane too.Bah funny people.But i guess the guy incharge of the commercial ship should have turned back on course when he realised the RSN ship was going in to his starboard.But like he said....could have been a terror attack...Originally posted by sgFish:haha yes..but isn't it a bit weird.. the courageous did a u-turn straight into the path of oncoming traffic before turning port? it could have turned starboard 90° out of the sea lane right away instead of doing a 270° (or so) turn to port..weird..anyone know the reason? -
Or....
All back full! -
lol.. all back full i think the APV kena cut in half down the centerline liao.. unless you're saying while they're doing that funny u turn thing then all back full..Originally posted by Johnston:Or....
All back full!
-
I disagree. If he suspect a terror attack, he should have asked for help or, at the least, turn away. Doing a small turn to avoid a terror attack is in his own words "absolutely absurd". I think he lost situation awareness and hump thump an answer.Originally posted by |-|05|:Could have u-turned to port and get into the right lane too.Bah funny people.But i guess the guy incharge of the commercial ship should have turned back on course when he realised the RSN ship was going in to his starboard.But like he said....could have been a terror attack...
-
Originally posted by Viper52:A leader who sees the big picture without looking at the small picture, or having even been exposed to the small picture, is not a good leader either.
Remember the commanders who saw the battle from the screens on the Orion over Mogadishu on Oct 3 1993? They saw a convoy that was moving orderly through the streets towards Super-Six-One's crash site, but in actual fact the movement was soaked in blood and filled with men dying and cursing.
The current doctrine focuses too much on high-tech gizmos and gimmicks. As some have pointed out rightly, I fear this will lead to a false impression wars can be won from the computer room. They can't, someone still has to bleed, to die. The high-tech will merely be the means to an end. Not the end itself.
If we ever do find ourselves in a war, I fear many people are going to have a nasty surprise. -
I think it is not complete to say that the commander has a false impression of the situation, he is aware of the dying and cursing, just that the ROE is restrictive for an escalatory strike. Can you imagine if he is allowed to lauch a hypersonic missile from continental US that can reach target in 10 minutes and cluster bomb an area of 5 km? Not so sure if many of the enemy can defend or survive.Originally posted by Viper52:A leader who sees the big picture without looking at the small picture, or having even been exposed to the small picture, is not a good leader either.
Remember the commanders who saw the battle from the screens on the Orion over Mogadishu on Oct 3 1993? They saw a convoy that was moving orderly through the streets towards Super-Six-One's crash site, but in actual fact the movement was soaked in blood and filled with men dying and cursing.
The current doctrine focuses too much on high-tech gizmos and gimmicks. As some have pointed out rightly, I fear this will lead to a false impression wars can be won from the computer room. They can't, someone still has to bleed, to die. The high-tech will merely be the means to an end. Not the end itself.
If we ever do find ourselves in a war, I fear many people are going to have a nasty surprise.
The introduction of machine gun changed the war in India, the nuclear bomb ended WWII. If we do not harness the advancement in technology and force multiply, there is no hope for us to fight against a numerically superior aggressor. -
The fact remains - there was a level headed colonel holding the convoy together and driving them to accomplish the mission.Originally posted by Blue Dolphin:I think it is not complete to say that the commander has a false impression of the situation, he is aware of the dying and cursing, just that the ROE is restrictive for an escalatory strike. Can you imagine if he is allowed to lauch a hypersonic missile from continental US that can reach target in 10 minutes and cluster bomb an area of 5 km? Not so sure if many of the enemy can defend or survive.
The introduction of machine gun changes the war in India, the nuclear bomb ended WWII. If we do not harness the advancement in technology and force multiply, there is no hope for us to fight against a numerically superior aggressor. 
Technology is only a small part of the solution. Zoom out a bit and u see we have outdone ourselves in harnessing technology.
The rest of the boat is thinking "Fortress Singapore" will stop the Japs even if they land in Peninsula Malaysia.
I think that's where we are today and we have to wait for the Japs to come and show us that the guns have been pointing the wrong way! -
cannot use mogadishu as an example lah... those rebels only techy stuff is handphone....
the high tech warfare only becomes valuble against an enemy that is highly dependent on information technology for logistics, planning, communication, command, control and intelligience....
what use is a computer virus against a mob who never even seen a keyboard??
thus... you must use the right tools to crack the right target.... as our potential enemy becomes more and more dependent on IT... a war for the IT ground becomes unavoidable. -
That's right.
Technology won't do much if SAF is up against an SEA force. They are still mostly in guerilla and policing mode. Just beginning to see conventional force in any substantial makeup except Thailand maybe?
Even in peacekeeping ops.....it won't be much help.
US, Australia, European Forces are the only ones in the league. -
I'm afraid pointing to technology as SAF's wrong focus is barking up the wrong tree.
Technology is technology. An AK-47 is technology, so is that makeshift bomb those J.I jokers love to make. Weapons technology in whatever incarnation is technology. The question is however, how much technology, what level, and what context it can be applied to our situtation.
SAF's drive towards technology is not misfocused, or wrong, if anything, it is a good thing that should be taken to it's logical conclusion, and that is the technological superiority over our potential foe.
Lest anybody point out that technology failed the americans in Mog. let it be known that a bunch of rangers and delta troopers held off a whole city of militia with air support and superior weaponry. What would have happened to the americans had they no body armour or Little Birds to keep the Somalis at bay? Less body bags? I doubt it. Mog. was not a failure of technology, but a failure of stragetic planning, and command and control. If anything, it was the superior technology the americans had that actually kept the body count on their side so surprisingly low and morbidly high on the Somali side.
What is the problem here however, is not technology itself, but the true soul and mettle of the men behind the machines. And that is the area SAF needs to work on. That is building up a personnel corps that will be able to make utter and full use of their advanced technology. Yes, we can have land warriors that are equipped with thermal sights, OICW-SAR21s, body armour and battlefield computers, but these same land warriors should be able to rough it out in the field and have the true mettle of a soldier as well.
The problem is not that we have too much technology, but rather, our people still have some work to do to match up and make optimal use of that technology. Only a fool would look at technology with dislain. Maybe you would still like to fly a Hunter instead of an F-16 today because it was more Old School and thought a pilot how to really fly instead of doing so with those icky FBW computers?
Technology does not make us wimps, it is a tool for us to use. The SAF is not misaligned in driving for high technology, but rather, lets say that in it's drive for high technology, let it not lose out on the drive for quality troops as well.
To dump technology in favour of making a more old school army? In Singapore's context? That's insanity. Not unless we're North Korea. -
Singapore Tyro,
You have put it all together quite well.
I still think SAF has driven too hard in the technology aspect, making these technology now look unreal.
I'm not saying dump technology but hold and re-group and check if they are heading in the right direction.
Priority now must be to put these gizmos and men into real action to see if they are force multipliers or otherwise.
Now let's see some sweat......with PDA's and all the other gizmos.
I'm now imagining how these soldiers will start tearing them off one by one as the heat come on. -
Indeed technology can be a force multiplier when applied right. Get max result for the least effort
As you pointed out, this fact is definitely not lost on those 'blame-the west & zionist conspiracy - but not themselves' pathetic born-losers who crash airliners or cars packed with c4s into buildings.