Don't think it will be an immediate future. The next focus should be a new fleet of submarines. Then the MCV replacement. BTW, I still feel that the MCVs are still too new and really still good for a while.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:So now that the navy's stealthy frigated are under construction and ST has all the know-how now. im sure we'll be seeing a Visby class lookalike in the future. Any ideas on the arms carried and combat systems?
can.u build one powered by nuclear and dump approximately 2billion$ for e R&D and everything lor.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:OPV cannot have all those stuff meh?
Well, most OPVs I know come in the other direction.......Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:OPV cannot have all those stuff meh?
You take 2 billion and divide it among all Singaporean tax payers.......I think not a small sum for each one.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:Eh 2 billion quite ok wat.... juz spread it over abt 3-5 yrs lar.... for that sum can get next-gen naval vessel quite cheap liao. Can totally leap frog all the navies in this region.
Agree on the culture and ethos required to excel in sub ops. The Israelis learn it the hard way with one sinking.........I pray we don't have another RSS Courageous with the subs.Originally posted by Laplace:Procuring new SSKs is one issue, being able to create our very own genuine submarine ethos is another. And a very serious one at that.
Any Tom dick or Harry country with hard cash and a pool can start it's own "silent service", but it's countries with very strong cutures and foundations in submarine operations and warfare that will excel.
Creating something like that of the RN's is still currently out of reach, but Singapore should strive to use the examples of the German Navy and the Royal Netherlands Navy in the creation of our very own submarine culture and excellence.
Some snap suggestions:
1) Starting a submarine training centre with doctrine and experience relevant to our conditions and capabilities. This would apply not only to the crew onboard the boats but also all staff related to submarine operations. Land or sea based.
2) Development of adequate and efficient specialized logistic support and maintenance infrastructures catered specifically for Submarines. Cant expect all facilities meant for surface vessels to suit a sub 100% can't we?
3) Developement of our own industries and agencies with the capability of enhancing/upgrading older subs, repairing serious damages and having the ability to carry out modelling and simulation experiments, investigations and tests locally to satisfy whatever requirement the RSN wants.
4) Developing a solid and 100% operationally capable and relevent DSRV ability. Not just procuring a DSRV vessel and a tender ship from some other country but developing our own DSRV TRADOC with full peripheral support and all.
The A19 class are known as the Gotlands, the A17s the Vastergotlands..., might as well buy the Viking, as the timeframe would be more closer to our probable replacement for the Challenger class (ex A11 Sjoormen class)Originally posted by damienthedevil:Fairyland, why the A19 Vastergotlands, when we should go for the Viking.