RSN,what abt a battleship?
-
My second topic started
Anyway,I want to ask,would it be possible to get a battleship as a command & control center,a flagship for our navy.
Traditionally,most people believe that the age of the battleship is over due to the carrier,but maybe you should check out this link:
http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm
Our navy tends not to have the manpower for a lot of things but with technology we could minimise this problem.And to support a battleship,we have the necessary money.Politically,it would allow us to project power and increase our status.Imagine if you would an armoured battleship just anchored of the coast of Pedra Branca.It would upset our neighbours greatly,as they would not be able to afford a battleship as well.It would also contribute greatly to the defence of our homeland,acting as a very powerful psychological deterrent.
Realistically speaking,I doubt we would ever get one.Firstly,there is no need for one,though there might be.Secondly,it would trigger an arms race in the region.
this thread is merely to debate the merits of getting one.Oh yeah.and people,pls stop underestimating Malaysia.or Indonesia.if anything,treat all possible enemies with caution.better to err on the side of caution than be arrogant and assume that we will easily beat them in a war. -
nah.... waste of good money...
i am looking forward to the future of build in 2 minute, plastic disposable stealth unmanned warship
-
Why do we need a battleship for? In naval warfare nowadays, size dosen't matter anymore, its the capabilities that count. In the past there were to such thing as anti-ship missiles, thats why there were 'battleships' to fit huge calibre batteries on the deck. Now with BVR missiles and the lethelity of such a weapon..one hit at the right spot can sink an aircraft carrier..
-
I think we should have a super small, stealth and fast attack craft. Armed with nothing but missiles, whether anti-aircraft, anti-ship, surface to surface, long range, medium range or short range. hahaha.. that'll surely bring terror to anyone
imagine, 10 such crafts each fired 1 missile at the common target... i don't think the target have enough countermeasures for 10 incoming missiles. hahaha.... -
hahaha...an anti-everything boat...how novel. It's a good idea actually.
-
Originally posted by Sardaukar:
the article u mentioned talked mostly about re-commissioning old battleship hulls... i don't think its viable to build that kind of platform from scratch.
Our navy tends not to have the manpower for a lot of things but with technology we could minimise this problem.And to support a battleship,we have the necessary money.Politically,it would allow us to project power and increase our status.Imagine if you would an armoured battleship just anchored of the coast of Pedra Branca.It would upset our neighbours greatly,as they would not be able to afford a battleship as well.It would also contribute greatly to the defence of our homeland,acting as a very powerful psychological deterrent.
besides, it requires a crew of more than 1000! i think they'll be problems staffing it... for the RSN, think small... -
hi there just like to offer my two cents worth..
by wantg to have a battleship, we must think of a place where we can berth the ship and secondly, u r rite.By havg the ship, our neighbours will be kickg up a big fuss and makg a hoo-hah over the procurement...and with the situation as now, the government would not want to get into another tussle with our neighbours.
thus the cons definitely weigh more than the pros... -
At the end of the day, it's a question of how the money can be best spent. As an example of this, see the thread about the cancellation of the Comanche program.
-
not only that... the battleship is basically a relic of a bygone era... that they have managed to find another use for existing hulls is well and good, but it is simply impossible to built new ones anymore.Originally posted by Gedanken:At the end of the day, it's a question of how the money can be best spent. As an example of this, see the thread about the cancellation of the Comanche program.
its like asking the Americans to build diesel powered subs for Taiwan... they can't cos they don't do it anymore... all the tools and dies had been de-commissioned and scrapped.
but the article does have a point... modern ships have no naval presence... it might make good sense to start building ships with at least some armour so it can stand up to small arms. -
Not exactly a relic.Infact both the DD-21 and the arsenal ship program was started because the US felt they needed to replace the capabilities that was missing after the retirement of the BB's.I think the BB's shld be upgraded...remove those turrents and replace them with rockets and SM-2's!!!Remove the 5inches and put more guided missiles!!!Originally posted by CX:not only that... the battleship is basically a relic of a bygone era... that they have managed to find another use for existing hulls is well and good, but it is simply impossible to built new ones anymore.
its like asking the Americans to build diesel powered subs for Taiwan... they can't cos they don't do it anymore... all the tools and dies had been de-commissioned and scrapped.
but the article does have a point... modern ships have no naval presence... it might make good sense to start building ships with at least some armour so it can stand up to small arms. -
Actually the US BBs you see in the mothballs are very different from the original incarnation in WW2. After WW2, they have been periodically taken out of mothballs anfd refurbished when the need arise. In their latest form prior to the last decommissioning, they were fitted with tomahawk cruise missiles with harpoon launcher in the quarterdeck and the last turrent (I may be wrong here) was replaced with a helipad. All this was done for the cost of less than a Perry class frigate in the defense dollars of that era. It was a very cost effective thing to do then and in a way was meant as a response to the introduction of the Soviet Kirov class which can be termed as a modern equivalent of a battlecruiser. The New Jerseys were fast - 30 kts and their armour makes them almost impregnable to modern ASM. What is a harpoon compared to the 18 inch shells of the Japanese battleships which they were meant to engage and survive. And nothing today can ever compared to them in the NGFS role. They are something you would not want to see when you are manning a bunker on the beachOriginally posted by |-|05|:Not exactly a relic.Infact both the DD-21 and the arsenal ship program was started because the US felt they needed to replace the capabilities that was missing after the retirement of the BB's.I think the BB's shld be upgraded...remove those turrents and replace them with rockets and SM-2's!!!Remove the 5inches and put more guided missiles!!! However to build them from scrach again would be impractical - The cost of that as mentioned by other forumers would be prohibitive and let's not even go into the life cycle cost of those things. Do our area of operation require them? They might be impressive in blue water operation but in littoral operations in a area of contested maritime command? You would not want to try to manoeuvre this baby in the Malacca Straits and the Singapore Straits. Let's not even go into the political repercussion of it. There are far more cost effective way to spend your defense dollars -
Never said we shld get themOriginally posted by solaris:Actually the US BBs you see in the mothballs are very different from the original incarnation in WW2. After WW2, they have been periodically taken out of mothballs anfd refurbished when the need arise. In their latest form prior to the last decommissioning, they were fitted with tomahawk cruise missiles with harpoon launcher in the quarterdeck and the last turrent (I may be wrong here) was replaced with a helipad. All this was done for the cost of less than a Perry class frigate in the defense dollars of that era. It was a very cost effective thing to do then and in a way was meant as a response to the introduction of the Soviet Kirov class which can be termed as a modern equivalent of a battlecruiser. The New Jerseys were fast - 30 kts and their armour makes them almost impregnable to modern ASM. What is a harpoon compared to the 18 inch shells of the Japanese battleships which they were meant to engage and survive. And nothing today can ever compared to them in the NGFS role. They are something you would not want to see when you are manning a bunker on the beach However to build them from scrach again would be impractical - The cost of that as mentioned by other forumers would be prohibitive and let's not even go into the life cycle cost of those things. Do our area of operation require them? They might be impressive in blue water operation but in littoral operations in a area of contested maritime command? You would not want to try to manoeuvre this baby in the Malacca Straits and the Singapore Straits. Let's not even go into the political repercussion of it. There are far more cost effective way to spend your defense dollars But they sure aint relics my friend.And no the last turrent wasnt removed...they only had 3....(well the iowas anyway) -
the French Exocet anti-ship missile, which sunk British ships during the 1983 Falklands war, can penetrate 2.75 inches of steel. An Iowa battleship has steel armor from 6-17 inches thick, compared to just a quarter inch on modern Aegis cruisers and destroyers. dunno bout carriers, but if i'm not wrong they're heavily compartmentalised and also has thicker armor..Originally posted by Jazzswing:Why do we need a battleship for? In naval warfare nowadays, size dosen't matter anymore, its the capabilities that count. In the past there were to such thing as anti-ship missiles, thats why there were 'battleships' to fit huge calibre batteries on the deck. Now with BVR missiles and the lethelity of such a weapon..one hit at the right spot can sink an aircraft carrier.. -
the French Exocet anti-ship missile, which sunk British ships during the 1983 Falklands war, can penetrate 2.75 inches of steel. An Iowa battleship has steel armor from 6-17 inches thick, compared to just a quarter inch on modern Aegis cruisers and destroyers. dunno bout carriers, but if i'm not wrong they're heavily compartmentalised and also has thicker armor..Originally posted by Jazzswing:Why do we need a battleship for? In naval warfare nowadays, size dosen't matter anymore, its the capabilities that count. In the past there were to such thing as anti-ship missiles, thats why there were 'battleships' to fit huge calibre batteries on the deck. Now with BVR missiles and the lethelity of such a weapon..one hit at the right spot can sink an aircraft carrier.. -
For battleships fans and specs of the Iowas. There is a comparision between the Iowa/Yamato/Bismarck and King George V
http://www.combinedfleet.com/ -
Cannot compare.The Iowa using the Bismarck sighting system which germany was the only 1 in the world to have when the Bismarck was launched.Originally posted by solaris:For battleships fans and specs of the Iowas. There is a comparision between the Iowa/Yamato/Bismarck and King George V
http://www.combinedfleet.com/
But like said...takes around 1,200 men to operated a BB.....so i doubt singapore can afford...i mean we can fill 15 ships with that many people!! -
a BB has a huge radar and sonar signature,enough said.
-
A BB has a shitload of armor, packed with enough weapons to blow your coastal base into scrap. Add the Tomahawks, and we can start WWIII. Or make your country glow in the dark. The TLAM-N still has that 200kt warhead. (Granted, their all in storage)Originally posted by Marco_Simone:a BB has a huge radar and sonar signature,enough said.
Iowa class Battleship (After SLEP)
Light Displacement: 45231 tons
Full Displacement: 57271 tons
Dead Weight: 12040 tons
9 16 inch/50 cal guns
12 5 inch/ 38 cal guns
32 Tomahawks
16 Harpoon
1,515 ship's company
65 officers
That's a kick ass warship if ever there was one. The USN could still make a viable combatant out of their Iowa's, if they stripped down the 5 inch's and added other systems.
Besides, any large surface combatant such as a BB, CVN, or even an UNREP ship will have ships escorting it. And... their 35 knot maximum speed means their great for escorting carriers, which come to think of it, was their original purpose. Add a Iowa to a CVBG and you have one major ass-kicker. -
Yes that sounds nice.So,how will it contribute to Singapore's naval defence?Originally posted by Johnston:A BB has a shitload of armor, packed with enough weapons to blow your coastal base into scrap. Add the Tomahawks, and we can start WWIII. Or make your country glow in the dark. The TLAM-N still has that 200kt warhead. (Granted, their all in storage)
Iowa class Battleship (After SLEP)
Light Displacement: 45231 tons
Full Displacement: 57271 tons
Dead Weight: 12040 tons
9 16 inch/50 cal guns
12 5 inch/ 38 cal guns
32 Tomahawks
16 Harpoon
1,515 ship's company
65 officers
That's a kick ass warship if ever there was one. The USN could still make a viable combatant out of their Iowa's, if they stripped down the 5 inch's and added other systems.
Besides, any large surface combatant such as a BB, CVN, or even an UNREP ship will have ships escorting it. And... their 35 knot maximum speed means their great for escorting carriers, which come to think of it, was their original purpose. Add a Iowa to a CVBG and you have one major ass-kicker. -
Simple.Originally posted by Marco_Simone:Yes that sounds nice.So,how will it contribute to Singapore's naval defence?
The purchase of such a ship, IF we ever get the funds and the know how to build it...
Will send a strong message to the region.
Don't
Foxtrot
Uniform
Charlie
Kilo
With the RSN.
As a asides, the battleship will be a tough ship to sink, if we can afford the "recommended" escort for it. Or we could just use the Tomahawks as deterrent. Don't you dare Foxtrot with me, or i'll send a TLAM or TASM right to your HQ. Berth that sucker at CNB, and ring it with all the SAMs we can muster.
Bingo. We've got ourselves a boomer. -
Gedankan,CX and all the other veteran posters,whats your take on RSN getting a missile destroyer,or something up to the battleship class,such as an LPD,LHS,guided missile destroyer,missile cruiser.That sort of thing.
Do you think we can afford to get a fleet based around destroyers with multiple stalth frigates and corvettes?
and whats your take on retiring the Missile Gunboats?While they are necessary,once they are retired why not give them to the Coast Guard .Imagine,Police Coast Guard getting military-grade Missile Gunboats. -
uhmmm... if ever we are ever allowed to get TLAM and TASM... i think we can just install them inside the bukit timah hill and viola... we still send a strong message but no need the stupid BB.Originally posted by Johnston:Simple.
The purchase of such a ship, IF we ever get the funds and the know how to build it...
Will send a strong message to the region.
Don't
Foxtrot
Uniform
Charlie
Kilo
With the RSN.
As a asides, the battleship will be a tough ship to sink, if we can afford the "recommended" escort for it. Or we could just use the Tomahawks as deterrent. Don't you dare Foxtrot with me, or i'll send a TLAM or TASM right to your HQ. Berth that sucker at CNB, and ring it with all the SAMs we can muster.
Bingo. We've got ourselves a boomer. -
i'm not veteran lah... i only post here cos i bo liaoOriginally posted by Sardaukar:Gedankan,CX and all the other veteran posters,whats your take on RSN getting a missile destroyer,or something up to the battleship class,such as an LPD,LHS,guided missile destroyer,missile cruiser.That sort of thing.
Do you think we can afford to get a fleet based around destroyers with multiple stalth frigates and corvettes?
and whats your take on retiring the Missile Gunboats?While they are necessary,once they are retired why not give them to the Coast Guard .Imagine,Police Coast Guard getting military-grade Missile Gunboats.
i'm no expert but its pretty obvious that RSN is not conceived as that kind of navy that u're talking about... for one thing, big ships requires big crew... and we don't have enough babies to begin with
its essentially a "pocket" navy intended to be small, nimble and flexible.
so its useless to even talk about destroyers, battleships, or carriers... we're just not gonna get them. they key is to cram some of these capabilities into existing platforms, so LPDs, maybe... but everything else? nay... not gonna happen.
has the transfer to coast guards been confirmed yet? don't think i've heard it explicitly articulated officially anywhere... but it does seem a big overkill... and the last time we talked about it around here, someone (i dun remember who) said that the likelihood is that the missiles will be removed (harpoon vs sampan? for what?). so a ship that size? for the coastguards? eh... no comments till i read it on the news lah... pointless to speculate. -
Well if u went to the AA2004 u'd see some concepts frm ST marine....3 new ship concept designs!! All nice....
-
Getting one of those Iowa class battlewagons for our RSN is a sheer fantasy which is only indulged in by the Wihelm II wannabes here...
Maintenance/operating,financial,diplomatic factors all militiates against such a proposition...