RSN's 'problem'?
-
The recent accident involving a Singapore PV is really distressing. Firstly we lost naval personnel. Secondly, we lost a patrol vessel.Thirdly, the lowering morale. All these will have quite a negative impact on the RSN. At the same time i have realise another "problem". The Malaysian navy have many frigates already in service. These frigates though not all from the same source(logistic and training problem) are all new and technologically advanced. They also already have naval helos in operation. Their new Scorpene submarines are almost definitely superior to our Challenger class "training"subs(assumming that we only do tropicalisation for the subs as maintained by the navy). I have no doubt that we still have the bite in our navy,however i am worried that our naval deterrence and superiority is decreasing fast. Can anyone prove me otherwise? Please bear in mind to compare navy to navy and not individual equiptment to equiptment.Thanks
-
If you compare hardware, there's no doubt that RSN is actually better equipped.
I used to think the software was world class and differentiate us from the rest. Now I don't think so.
This accident has shown the software is FAR behind the hardware with serious questions on the aptitude and professionalism of the officers and men.
All ships movement/steering commands will now be monitored real time all the time from Changi or Gombak using the datalink.
Very sad if it's true.
Of course I'm not so sure Malaysian navy is better in this respect but that could be because I'm Singaporean. -
I think there must be a right mix in technological quality and manpower quality. The first is easier to achieve because it is measurable in many aspects and can be done if there's the know-how, captial and will to do so. The second is more difficult to achieve. Because it can only be measured by actual performances, organizations like the SAF don't really have much to gauge with.
-
the PV wasnt lost but damaged...iot's back out to sea liao last i heard
-
Wow , so fast, I thought it will be almost a total lost, since almost a quarter of her's hull gone.Originally posted by |-|05|:the PV wasnt lost but damaged...iot's back out to sea liao last i heard
ST Marine did a pretty fast work in such a short time! Impressive.
CHARGE!!!
-
I tot RSS COURAGEOUS was destined for the junk yard like the Class A & B patrol craft........
If she's sailing now, it is indeed an impressive feat! Show's the PV design was sound and ST Marine's skills and organisation FANTASTIC!
RSN has to show Singapore they deserve to operate such powerfully expensive high tech weaponry especially the Delta Frigates coming soon.
You cannot have ppl stare elsewhere when a bloody ship is coming at you! I don't believe it!!! -
Well, the strangest things happen, i guess. It's sad that lives were lost, but accidents do happen.Originally posted by Fairyland:You cannot have ppl stare elsewhere when a bloody ship is coming at you! I don't believe it!!!
Consider the HMAS Melbourne, the Aussie carrier which rammed and sliced in half not one, but two destroyers during its career! One was the HMAS Voyager in 64, and the other was USS Frank E. Evans in 69. The first one killed 82 and the second killed 74. However, the carrier was cleared of blame on both occasions.
Collsions at sea are not a new thing. I am just glad that the Courageous incident was not worse than it was. -
Originally posted by gary1910:
Well my friend who serve on that ship told me.....he is back out to sea....not sure if they fixed it or moved him but i doubt they moved him.Besides the ship wasnt that badly damaged nothing that cant be fixed since the ship comes in a modulated design.
Wow , so fast, I thought it will be almost a total lost, since almost a quarter of her's hull gone.
ST Marine did a pretty fast work in such a short time! Impressive.
[b]CHARGE!!!
[/b] -
Dunno if this is still true, but a fren in Navy used to tell me that when we train with the US navy, we sure sucked in terms of SOP and readiness. And this was for things like sending equipment across ships.Originally posted by Fairyland:...
Of course I'm not so sure Malaysian navy is better in this respect but that could be because I'm Singaporean.
BUT, when we trained with the Malaysian navy, we came out better. As they say in mandarin, "Yi shan hai you yi shan gao" (literally there's always another hill taller than the one before) -
Accidents do happen, I agree. In the case of HMAS Melbourne, it's a big ship and errors made not that easy to correct.Originally posted by Blockhead:Well, the strangest things happen, i guess. It's sad that lives were lost, but accidents do happen.
Consider the HMAS Melbourne, the Aussie carrier which rammed and sliced in half not one, but two destroyers during its career! One was the HMAS Voyager in 64, and the other was USS Frank E. Evans in 69. The first one killed 82 and the second killed 74. However, the carrier was cleared of blame on both occasions.
Collsions at sea are not a new thing. I am just glad that the Courageous incident was not worse than it was.
For the smaller Fearless PVs with such powerful waterjets........I don't understand and therefore not so forgiving.......
RSN has plenty to answer for. IMHO they better go back to basics and start again with plenty more hands on with boats from the sailing clubs AND NOT SIMULATORS PLEASE!
All these Star Wars have become a liability........ -
well, that's the thing, isn't it? both times the carrier was found to be not at fault, which means a lot of the responsiblity would have fallen onto both the smaller ships.... which means that even with all the non-simulator, on-hands training regime, stuff like this still happens. All said and done, i think simulators are still a heck lot more effective than sending a newbie to take care of a ship.Originally posted by Fairyland:For the smaller Fearless PVs with such powerful waterjets........I don't understand and therefore not so forgiving.......
RSN has plenty to answer for. IMHO they better go back to basics and start again with plenty more hands on with boats from the sailing clubs AND NOT SIMULATORS PLEASE!
All these Star Wars have become a liability........ -
Well, here I disagree only through self biased and no facts.Originally posted by Blockhead:well, that's the thing, isn't it? both times the carrier was found to be not at fault, which means a lot of the responsiblity would have fallen onto both the smaller ships.... which means that even with all the non-simulator, on-hands training regime, stuff like this still happens. All said and done, i think simulators are still a heck lot more effective than sending a newbie to take care of a ship.
I'm sure RSN will overcome and come out stronger for our sake. -
-
I will be very surprised if the damaged PV is being returned to service! Is there any evidence like internet articles? The Fearless class PV is touted as having powerful water jets for steering so that its is very agile in the water,capable of executing tight turns. Thats why i am very surprised that it is involved in a collision. I posted this topic to draw your attention to the Malaysian navy modernisation. I am worried that they are catching up fast as they just have quite capable frigates and submarines with both the quality and quantity coming their way!
-
All these while their navy have outnumbered ours in term of size and quantity. We are just catching up with them in the purchase of the 6 frigates.Originally posted by tankee1981:I will be very surprised if the damaged PV is being returned to service! Is there any evidence like internet articles? The Fearless class PV is touted as having powerful water jets for steering so that its is very agile in the water,capable of executing tight turns. Thats why i am very surprised that it is involved in a collision. I posted this topic to draw your attention to the Malaysian navy modernisation. I am worried that they are catching up fast as they just have quite capable frigates and submarines with both the quality and quantity coming their way! -
The case of RSS Courageous has shown that hardware has to be matched with 'quality manpower'..........and world class organisation and system.
Though the Malaysian Navy has alot more hulls, I'm not so sure that translate to superiority?
With the Sjoormen subs, we can bring the fight to them rather than let them come at us. Of course there's the super duper RSAF!
With the E2Cs, Erieye F50 and Phalcon A310 they rule the skys of SEA! That includes the airspace over the seas too. Not to mention the networking in place.
We are ok for a long while yet. With the F-15s/JSF coming soon, we'll be able to fly circles around them and then with the JSF fly undetected.
Then you have Brahmos Type S......when deployed it will be orgasmic.
Now that the message is clear for all, I tot we're suppose to be friendlier with globalisation etc. -
Nope nothing on the net abt it.But then the ship while damaged can be repaired rather easily because of it's construction.Other then the sawen of part the tower fell.Both can be replaced pretty fast mah.Engine(it's in the center i think) and most of the Electronics suite is intact.Originally posted by tankee1981:I will be very surprised if the damaged PV is being returned to service! Is there any evidence like internet articles? The Fearless class PV is touted as having powerful water jets for steering so that its is very agile in the water,capable of executing tight turns. Thats why i am very surprised that it is involved in a collision. I posted this topic to draw your attention to the Malaysian navy modernisation. I am worried that they are catching up fast as they just have quite capable frigates and submarines with both the quality and quantity coming their way! -
Brudder , jus relax. I dun see that they are overtaking us , i merely see their modernisation as a match up.Originally posted by tankee1981:I posted this topic to draw your attention to the Malaysian navy modernisation. I am worried that they are catching up fast as they just have quite capable frigates and submarines with both the quality and quantity coming their way!
Let mi do a case to case study ( current fleet ):
2 Lekiu Class Frigate + 2 Kasturi Class ---> 6 MCV .
* Kasturi Class Frigate lack serious AAW .
* MCV , MGB being small is harder to detect.
4 Laksamana Corvette + 4 Handalan Class (Spica-M) Patrol Craft + 4 Perdana class missile boats ---> 6 MGB.
None ---> 5 Sjoormen submarine.
* Sjoormen class vulnerable to Malaysian ASW Heli.
* Malaysian ASW Heli vulnerable to RSAF's Fighters.
All RMN ships --> 5 Fokker 50 MPA.
All RMN ships --> 50+ A-4SUs.
* All RMN ships vulnerable to F-50 MPA and A-4SUs.
* RMN simply outnumbered under RSAF's aircover.
None ( no significant underwater combatants )--> Fearless Class Anti-submarine Vessel.
6 AS 555 SN Fennecs + 6 Super Lynx 300 --> None.
Future Combatants :
6 Meko A100 Corvette --> 6 Delta Class Frigate.
2 Scorpene + 1 Augusta Submarine --> Possible NG-Subs or at least 5 Sjoormen Class Submarines + 6 Fearless Class Anti-Submarine Vessel.
* RMN plan to field 27 NGPV , Singapore can follow up suit with 12 PVs to replace and room for more Frigates.
* RMN 27 NGPV will replace some of their current vessel. So it is very much of a +2 then -1 in their naval size.
* Singapore's Defence Industry provide an additional edge.
* Singapore plan to field the LALEE uav for Naval stand off surveillence. No equivilant in the region. -
no significant underwater assets ?
There are many reports that the RMN operates subs...(and I mean not the agosta/scorpenes!). There have been repeated reports in Janes' Navy issues year after year of this.
The M'sian government refuses to confirm or deny the reports. So far they have admitted to only purchasing the Agosta and Scorpenes....as to the reports of subs from Italy.....no confirmation.
Go to Malacca and visit the RMN Naval museum...you will see the model of that sub there. As a clue, the Pakistani navy also operates such subs....(and I meant not Agosta). The sub originates from Italy. -
One was on display in Langkawi a few years back and a joint venture announced with the ltalian manufacturer for local manufacture.Originally posted by observe:no significant underwater assets ?
There are many reports that the RMN operates subs...(and I mean not the agosta/scorpenes!). There have been repeated reports in Janes' Navy issues year after year of this.
The M'sian government refuses to confirm or deny the reports. So far they have admitted to only purchasing the Agosta and Scorpenes....as to the reports of subs from Italy.....no confirmation.
Go to Malacca and visit the RMN Naval museum...you will see the model of that sub there. As a clue, the Pakistani navy also operates such subs....(and I meant not Agosta). The sub originates from Italy.
I believe it's called the Cosmos 110 or some other variants:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/mg110.htm
However there are rumors of RSN operating submarines even before the announcement of the Sjoormens.
My guess is they are mini subs operated by the divers with built-in underwater microwave oven for cooking their enemies to eat.
A secret world 1st by RSN divers!
- cooking and eating human flesh(buttocks to be more precise) in water! -
When i meant ' no significant underwater asserts ' doesnt mean that RMN doesnt operate any underwater weaponary , it is just that their underwater toys arent significant threat at all...Originally posted by observe:There are many reports that the RMN operates subs...(and I mean not the agosta/scorpenes!). There have been repeated reports in Janes' Navy issues year after year of this.
The M'sian government refuses to confirm or deny the reports. So far they have admitted to only purchasing the Agosta and Scorpenes....as to the reports of subs from Italy.....no confirmation.
Go to Malacca and visit the RMN Naval museum...you will see the model of that sub there. As a clue, the Pakistani navy also operates such subs....(and I meant not Agosta). The sub originates from Italy.
Talking abt conventional Submarines , Singapore aint the first country in SEA to operate them. Indonesia and Malaysia had submarine/(s) long ago. But in wat condition? If i will to speak , they are in rusty or at most in semi-operational condition . How significant can that be? In my opinion , they aint significant threats.... -
Any infos on what armaments n firepower are onboard these RMN vessels?Originally posted by foxtrout8:Brudder , jus relax. I dun see that they are overtaking us , i merely see their modernisation as a match up.
Let mi do a case to case study ( current fleet ):
2 Lekiu Class Frigate + 2 Kasturi Class ---> 6 MCV .
* Kasturi Class Frigate lack serious AAW .
* MCV , MGB being small is harder to detect.
4 Laksamana Corvette + 4 Handalan Class (Spica-M) Patrol Craft + 4 Perdana class missile boats ---> 6 MGB.
None ---> 5 Sjoormen submarine.
* Sjoormen class vulnerable to Malaysian ASW Heli.
* Malaysian ASW Heli vulnerable to RSAF's Fighters.
All RMN ships --> 5 Fokker 50 MPA.
All RMN ships --> 50+ A-4SUs.
* All RMN ships vulnerable to F-50 MPA and A-4SUs.
* RMN simply outnumbered under RSAF's aircover.
None ( no significant underwater combatants )--> Fearless Class Anti-submarine Vessel.
6 AS 555 SN Fennecs + 6 Super Lynx 300 --> None.
Future Combatants :
6 Meko A100 Corvette --> 6 Delta Class Frigate.
2 Scorpene + 1 Augusta Submarine --> Possible NG-Subs or at least 5 Sjoormen Class Submarines + 6 Fearless Class Anti-Submarine Vessel.
* RMN plan to field 27 NGPV , Singapore can follow up suit with 12 PVs to replace and room for more Frigates.
* RMN 27 NGPV will replace some of their current vessel. So it is very much of a +2 then -1 in their naval size.
* Singapore's Defence Industry provide an additional edge.
* Singapore plan to field the LALEE uav for Naval stand off surveillence. No equivilant in the region. -
Hi there,Originally posted by foxtrout8:Brudder , jus relax. I dun see that they are overtaking us , i merely see their modernisation as a match up.
Let mi do a case to case study ( current fleet ):
2 Lekiu Class Frigate + 2 Kasturi Class ---> 6 MCV .
* Kasturi Class Frigate lack serious AAW .
* MCV , MGB being small is harder to detect.
4 Laksamana Corvette + 4 Handalan Class (Spica-M) Patrol Craft + 4 Perdana class missile boats ---> 6 MGB.
None ---> 5 Sjoormen submarine.
* Sjoormen class vulnerable to Malaysian ASW Heli.
* Malaysian ASW Heli vulnerable to RSAF's Fighters.
All RMN ships --> 5 Fokker 50 MPA.
All RMN ships --> 50+ A-4SUs.
* All RMN ships vulnerable to F-50 MPA and A-4SUs.
* RMN simply outnumbered under RSAF's aircover.
None ( no significant underwater combatants )--> Fearless Class Anti-submarine Vessel.
6 AS 555 SN Fennecs + 6 Super Lynx 300 --> None.
Future Combatants :
6 Meko A100 Corvette --> 6 Delta Class Frigate.
2 Scorpene + 1 Augusta Submarine --> Possible NG-Subs or at least 5 Sjoormen Class Submarines + 6 Fearless Class Anti-Submarine Vessel.
* RMN plan to field 27 NGPV , Singapore can follow up suit with 12 PVs to replace and room for more Frigates.
* RMN 27 NGPV will replace some of their current vessel. So it is very much of a +2 then -1 in their naval size.
* Singapore's Defence Industry provide an additional edge.
* Singapore plan to field the LALEE uav for Naval stand off surveillence. No equivilant in the region.
A nice effort but why didn't you include PASKAL in your case study? The unit operates a number of Subskimmers and is likely to cross train on the three Cosmos midget subs mentioned by other forumers.
What about the sizeable number of Swedish-made CombatBoats? These are rather useful for coastal hook ops.
Also, four Beech King Air 200s are operated by TUDM's "Canary" SKN in the maritime surveillance role.
Do remember that naval power is seldom accurately quantified via a straight forward comparison of fleet numbers, tonnage or naval aviation strength. Other unseen elements come into play too, like electronic warfare, sustainability of effort, crew morale, etc....
My 2 cents worth.
Cheers
db -
aren't significant threat at all ?Originally posted by foxtrout8:When i meant ' no significant underwater asserts ' doesnt mean that RMN doesnt operate any underwater weaponary , it is just that their underwater toys arent significant threat at all...
those subs actual sank an Indian Navy's frigate in 1971 Pak-Indian war.
Indian has recently introduced them too after realising how effective there were especially for shallow waters. Guess how deep are the waters in the Straits of Malacca and those surrounding S'pore. Ever wondered why was Courageous, an ASW PV, patrolling Pedra Branca? -
I share your concern that the Malaysian Navy is growing stronger by the day and with some significant purchases in the near future. While as much as I like us to maintain if not expand the capability gap, I am not so sure that we should then follow on with hardware purchases to do so. Moreover, as some of the senior members have rightfully pointed out, it is not JUST hardware comparision.Originally posted by tankee1981:I posted this topic to draw your attention to the Malaysian navy modernisation. I am worried that they are catching up fast as they just have quite capable frigates and submarines with both the quality and quantity coming their way!
Perhaps we need to work harder on thinking out of the box and come up with simple idea but effective ones. I draw your attention to the way the egyptians penetrated Isreal defensive sandbank, they use water cannons, instead of conventional bombs.
Perhaps what we need is to "transform" warfare with new way of fighting. Stealth? New methods? Precision weapons? Was it not what Chief of Airforce that says today we think of how many targets for an aircraft rather than how many aircraft needed for a target.
I have faith that our RSN planners are not idling, perhaps they may already be working out a solution.