RSN Expansion ieas
-
An aicraft carrier is not armoured. It will be less seriously damaged than the courageous because of its gigantic size. Do you know how small is the Fearless class PV compared to that cargo vessel and an aircraft carrier?
By saying that singapore has no experience in armour or IFVs, does it mean that we have to reinvent the wheel and start from scratch in the design of armour to have a capable AFV?
What makes you think that the Bionix have no add-on-armour?
All your posts are just full of crap. -
aircraft carrier not armored lol
-
Well show some proof that it's armoured before you laugh to death.
You're just plain ignorant. -
Billions of USD ,
5,000 Crew
81 latest aircraft
a admiral
and a nuclear powered engine
no armour??
LOL.....the difference between star cruise , ANL and the aircraft carrier is not
SIZE
but the pure brutality and power of 92,000 tons of diplomacy
92,000 tons is the weight of aircraft carrier and if without armor...
i think broken arrow is going to happen..
US going to risk having a nuclear powered sea weapon trapped like the kursk
loll...no armor..LOL...
even thailand heli carrier only 20,000 tons lol..
no armor??
LOL...rofl..
just use ur mind to reason it out
Why the heck deploy a behemoth when the behemoth is going to be a
LIABILITY
and if u think 81 aircraft is going to be so easily downed..i think ur wrong!
The aircraft carrier even with 92,000 tons ...can choose to put on TONS of armour Cuz its nuclear powered and you know what?
Nuclear power's strength is unlimited.. -
I think he mistaken 'hull' for 'armour'.
A well placed topedo strike can sink an - yes- an entire aircraft carrier. The only armour an aircraft carrier has are her jets, the rest of CBG, and her own counter measures. -
that is if it's well placed...Originally posted by Jazzswing:I think he mistaken 'hull' for 'armour'. A well placed topedo strike can sink an - yes- an entire aircraft carrier. The only armour an aircraft carrier has are her jets, the rest of CBG, and her own counter measures.
anyway carriers have sunk before and that is 1942 times..lol..
when the armour was so weak and just 1 kamikaze is enough to take 1 down
Anyway the carrier has so much force with it and by increasing the O/P of the nuclear reactor inside it..i don't think it will conflict with the ship's speed if they equip it with more armour
92,000 TONS...who would wanna risk 5000 lives by not putting any armour?
USA always have PLAN B
when it comes to countering ICBMs,
not only they use aegis on ships
and by using satellite to catch them
they fire PAC-III from the ships
and not only that..do you know that as a last resort
they got PAC-III launchers located at the coast facing Pacific Ocean?
If all the missiles miss -
SibeiSuayKia your theory does make some senses but before anyone can come out with any statistics or proof its only plain guessing.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:Billions of USD ,
5,000 Crew
81 latest aircraft
a admiral
and a nuclear powered engine
no armour??
LOL.....the difference between star cruise , ANL and the aircraft carrier is not
SIZE
but the pure brutality and power of 92,000 tons of diplomacy
92,000 tons is the weight of aircraft carrier and if without armor...
i think broken arrow is going to happen..
US going to risk having a nuclear powered sea weapon trapped like the kursk
loll...no armor..LOL...
even thailand heli carrier only 20,000 tons lol..
no armor??
LOL...rofl..
just use ur mind to reason it out
Why the heck deploy a behemoth when the behemoth is going to be a
LIABILITY
and if u think 81 aircraft is going to be so easily downed..i think ur wrong!
The aircraft carrier even with 92,000 tons ...can choose to put on TONS of armour Cuz its nuclear powered and you know what?
Nuclear power's strength is unlimited..
92,000 tons sure sounds like hell lots of steel there..
However I believe your figure quoted is the displacement of the ship.
Anyone knows if a ship's displacement is equal to the total mass of the ship? -
haha, i'm replying to you simply cos its so fun.
USA always have PLAN B
well, you're slightly correct on this one. the aircraft carrier's deck is slightly armoured. the hull of the ship itself is quite thick, so maybe can repel some small arms fire. a nuke? if the aegis and the sm-2er miss, then there's no saving to be done. if the nuke is even going to miss the battle group, incredible damage will be done. nowadays nuke is not like hiroshima 20kilotons. nowadays standard is around 200 or 500 kilotons with some going up to 2megatons. you wanna try to sheild from a nuke? build an underground bunker, or have at least 100 metre thick shielding. cos the temperatures produced by a nuke will reach the core of the sun's temps. and that will not only destroy any armour within a few km, it'll completely VAPOURISE,yes, that is after melting, the metal turns into a gas. its THAT hot. during the nuke tests in the south pacific, whole chains of islands were blown off the globe, literally. you try to armour that la.
when it comes to countering ICBMs,
not only they use aegis on ships
and by using satellite to catch them
they fire PAC-III from the ships
and not only that..do you know that as a last resort
they got PAC-III launchers located at the coast facing Pacific Ocean?
If all the missiles miss -
i doubt the hull is armoured, prob double hulled to reduce the possibility of sinking after one hit? (i'm guessing here) but i doubt its armoured.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:that is if it's well placed...
anyway carriers have sunk before and that is 1942 times..lol..
when the armour was so weak and just 1 kamikaze is enough to take 1 down
Anyway the carrier has so much force with it and by increasing the O/P of the nuclear reactor inside it..i don't think it will conflict with the ship's speed if they equip it with more armour
92,000 TONS...who would wanna risk 5000 lives by not putting any armour?
USA always have PLAN B
when it comes to countering ICBMs,
not only they use aegis on ships
and by using satellite to catch them
they fire PAC-III from the ships
and not only that..do you know that as a last resort
they got PAC-III launchers located at the coast facing Pacific Ocean?
If all the missiles miss
yes one kamikaze prob wouldnt sink an aircraft carrier today but thats cos the deck is strengthened to withstand the take offs and landing of planes, including the heavier ones like the E-2C... not really because its supposed to withstand an SSM slamming into it...
in fact, if an SSM doesnt sink the A/C, the A/C is also as good as out of action already, if aircraft cannot take off or land on it, its worthless already, doesnt even have to be sunk entirely...
with all that jet fuel around, having ANYTHING slam into the aircraft carrier and jolting it such that jet fuel leaks or is sparked is a very big risk...
to have some figures back up the idea that a aircraft carrier is not likely to be armoured:
Maersk Pointer
Tanker
Length: 244.6 m
Beam: 42 m
DWT: 110,000 tonnes
USS George Washington
Aircraft Carrier
Length: 332.85 m
Beam: 40.84 m
Displacement (full load): approx 100,000 tonnes
notice that despite the USS George Washington being much longer, it is likely to be lighter than the Maersk Pointer. Most of the weight of a tanker is taken up by oil, which fill most of the ship's space, but an aircraft carrier has alot more "empty space" aboard because it is meant to be inhabited.. Even taking this into consideration, the George Washington is still has a much greater displacement compared to the Pointer...
the comparison of these two ships is not as effective as i would like it to be because the disparity is not very great... perhaps if someone could find more examples we would have a more conclusive answer.
Note:
in doing these comparisons, we are of case assuming that armour would factor heavily into the weight and therefore the displacement of the ship concerned.
but in the end, we cant be sure, just keep guessing, however, basically i doubt the carriers are armoured. -
Well u guys probably already knew it..Originally posted by Paladin:SibeiSuayKia your theory does make some senses but before anyone can come out with any statistics or proof its only plain guessing.
92,000 tons sure sounds like hell lots of steel there..
However I believe your figure quoted is the displacement of the ship.
Anyone knows if a ship's displacement is equal to the total mass of the ship?
but just for those who might not know, like me..
"If the object is less dense than water (if it floats on water), it
displaces a weight of water equal to the weight of the object. If the
object sinks in water, it simply displaces a volume of water equal to the
volume of the object.
This is known as the Principle of Archimedes." -
Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:
irrelevent comparison... aircraft carrier's size and courageous size very different... no basis for comparison at all since the result will be due to the velocity and mass of both ships and not its armour.
lets say a aircarrier slammed into the hull of ANI indonesia
and courageous slammed into the hell of ani indonesia
which 1 do u expect to be more heavily damage
the answer proves my pointthe HEAT means high explosive anti tank
u provided the link... so how come u missed the following lines?
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEATThe reason for the ineffectiveness of HEAT-munitions against modern main battle tanks can be contributed in part to the use of reactive armor, and to the development of spaced armor...
somemore no test firing on it
and u would know if they didn't? certain concepts are proven... it makes sense to just replicate those success so u cut down on R & D cost which are very very high if u do things from scratch...and bionix don't have reactive armour! how to counter latest version of russian RPG-7
already mentioned... no need reactive armour to defeat HEAT... anyway, with modern "tandem" warheads, u can't defeat them easily with any armour... which reinforces the case for "soft-kill" options. -
come on CX show me proves that Bionix has been conducted
even if u put double titanium clading on the tank
and even if not tested..on live firing whats the damn point
everything is THEORY , but not PRACTICAL
have u even done any measurement to make sure ur stuff is correct?
all learned from internet?
if u come from armour i nothing to say...
cuz its seems that u also speculate -
Getting an air-craft carrier , means you will have to get the whole fleet of escort ships, that protect it, to form a carrier battle group. Just not possible for Singapore to have it, too costly and manpower to have a carrier group.Originally posted by Saint Valentinian:Should get a medium air-craft carrier
-
Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:
i don't know if they didn't test it... but i also DON'T KNOW if they DID test it.
come on CX show me proves that Bionix has been conducted
even if u put double titanium clading on the tank
and even if not tested..on live firing whats the damn point
double titanium armour back to back is useless against HEAT... but if u space it apart and slope it slightly in some places, it can have a great effect in dissipating the jets from a HEAT weapon.everything is THEORY , but not PRACTICAL
like the theory of gravity? or friction? or inertia? which are not so much theories, but LAWS of nature...
claiming that something that is observed to occur is nature is not "practical" is very amusing to me...
have u even done any measurement to make sure ur stuff is correct?
i always measure, double check and get someone else to look thru for me...
all learned from internet?
but after that's done and i make a photo-copy, does it make sense for me to go through the process on my photo-copies???if u come from armour i nothing to say...
not from armour, but not speculating. the BX features spaced-armour technology. that is why its so damn cramped in the passenger compartment even though it looks so big on the outside.
cuz its seems that u also speculate
the chances of survival are not 100%... i mean... in a battlefield, who has 100% ??? but the consequences are less tragic than having a HEAT penetrate through and frying the crew and passengers inside...
the vehicle will be damaged, but the crew has a higher than average chance of survival. -
okok stop it all about HEAT rounds
Last time, during the Israel-Palestinian conflict ,israel's strongest tank
went over a landmine..kaboom
a few died..
Is the bionix secured against landmine?
nowadays..enemy can use 10001 weapons against 1 armour..
And can the 12.7 mm gun destroy the polish tanks?
Can the policy of forward defense be applied if forward defensive
is rendered impossible by the implementation of landmine and blasting of "bridge?"
( i know this sounds lame that pple will put landmines in own country , but im assuming just a case like cambodia ) -
erm.. why must a 12.7 mm gun destroy polish tanks?? maybe its meant for soft armour targets... and if they have a 12.7mm gun and used as APC, then the troops they carry shud have anti-tank, which brings into question the HEAT missiles again... the vehicles with 12.7mm guns dun directly look for death by engaging MBTs...Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:okok stop it all about HEAT rounds
Last time, during the Israel-Palestinian conflict ,israel's strongest tank
went over a landmine..kaboom
a few died..
Is the bionix secured against landmine?
nowadays..enemy can use 10001 weapons against 1 armour..
And can the 12.7 mm gun destroy the polish tanks?
Can the policy of forward defense be applied if forward defensive
is rendered impossible by the implementation of landmine and blasting of "bridge?"
( i know this sounds lame that pple will put landmines in own country , but im assuming just a case like cambodia )
if the enemy can use 10001 tanks against 1 armour, so can the enemy's enemy...
and sorry to interrupt the discussion but:
the bionix is built to withstand most likely threats lah, not to be super invincible... i've no idea on the defences against mines though... -
before u can unload those RPG troops u need the 12.7mm gun to make the area safe from polish tanks...
-
You left out the recon factor in your equation. Plus, AFVs/IFVs do not operate alone and are not tasked to operate against heavy armour.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:before u can unload those RPG troops u need the 12.7mm gun to make the area safe from polish tanks... -
Most warship after a certain size have some sort of marine armoured. The smaller one trade it for speed and weight.
That is why anti-ship missile is huge, so it can have the ramming power and the heavy explosive to defeat the armour.
That is why the aircraft carrier alway operate with a carrier battle group that surround and protect it. Logical as the aircraft carrier is huge it will take a few hits to sink it. Note, some 2nd world war carriers are make of wood, not full steel, that is why the damage it bad. -
ummm... din know you ppl have come to armour in ship liao
the oni armour a ship have is the metal body itself and how thick it is.
someone mention abt the carrier group, that is one of the protections it have. all the smaller ship around the carrier are to protect it at all cost even it means it has to used itself to block an incoming torpedo which in WWII some has.
next will be the fighter jet that is circling around the carrier 24/7 and of cause it own radar. any UFO will be order to get out of it airspace or be shoot down even if it a commercial plane.
Anyone know what is the no fly zone? I not sure but it big, very big. -
Think the no fly zone is 110NM, it is based on the max distance a plane can launch its from air to ship missiles.Originally posted by Joshua1975:ummm... din know you ppl have come to armour in ship liao
the oni armour a ship have is the metal body itself and how thick it is.
someone mention abt the carrier group, that is one of the protections it have. all the smaller ship around the carrier are to protect it at all cost even it means it has to used itself to block an incoming torpedo which in WWII some has.
next will be the fighter jet that is circling around the carrier 24/7 and of cause it own radar. any UFO will be order to get out of it airspace or be shoot down even if it a commercial plane.
Anyone know what is the no fly zone? I not sure but it big, very big. -
hmmm... that is abt 203.720km, very far.Originally posted by storywolf:Think the no fly zone is 110NM, it is based on the max distance a plane can launch its from air to ship missiles. -
Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:
gee... i was not aware that u were expecting Sg to apply alien technology to build the "invincible tank" ...
okok stop it all about HEAT rounds
Last time, during the Israel-Palestinian conflict ,israel's strongest tank
went over a landmine..kaboom
a few died..
Is the bionix secured against landmine?
nowadays..enemy can use 10001 weapons against 1 armour..
hold on while i pull it out of my arse...
grow up lah... in war, pple die... even the merkeva, touted to be the most survivable tank in the world, can be disabled by determined palestinian militants wielding nothing more than AKs and improvised explosives.And can the 12.7 mm gun destroy the polish tanks?
why should it??? and its not 12.7... its 7.62mm and a 25mm cannon.
IFVs were NEVER intended to take out tanks by itself! u just showed your abject ignorance of armour doctrine.
armour moves in ABGs... armoured battle groups... consisting of different vehicles so they have the flexibility to move fast and still be able to neutralise most threats.Can the policy of forward defense be applied if forward defensive
well... u can try swimming across and walking on your tip toes just in case there are mines...
is rendered impossible by the implementation of landmine and blasting of "bridge?"( i know this sounds lame that pple will put landmines in own country , but im assuming just a case like cambodia )
well i dun care what the UN and other bleeding heart humanitarians say... if i was manning a defence position, i would want the perimeters to be mined.
a mine is a legitimate tool for an effective defence. -
Ambush..some tanks can just hide under the silhoutee of the jungle
DO YOU KNOW HOW THICK JUNGLE IS??
the question is..
You know whats the problem??
NOW??!!
The helicopters doing search and rescue in jungles of sabah and sarawak can't even find thier friend
so if u say apache will take out those tanks hiding in jungle..YOU are Wrong!
coz thier radar can't even detect a downed aircraft and they are even beginning to hire bomohs in the hope of finding the helicopter...
read straits times a few days back
IFV might just kana ambush..you'll never know 1 thing is for sure..
Apache will have problems working in jungle enviroment..
thats why ur IFV and MBT's come into place
so its either IFV vs MBT or MBT vs MBT..you'll never be 100% sure
note that apache = helicopter
Apache is only good for destroying protons on north-south highway
and btw.. AMG...do you know how slow it will take to move on a jungle??
at least 20km/hour...even if the enemy's Anti tank missile has no locking-on
system or whatever..20km/hour...is literally a sitting duck
if the tank move in ABG...just 1 whole group of polish MBTs with their guns blazing could just take out the ABG...dun forget apache is useless in thick jungle!
only used in desert storm II where there's no jungle..the person just hide inside the thick forest..fire 1 RPG...at ur copter..somemore copter is not really ez to manoevure
you might boast bionix can go 74km/hour...but thats on open road..nobody will go on open road in a wartime..
SEA war scenario is mainly jungles...to cover the land using copters u need apache..which goes at 360km/hour at max speed..
even if u got night vision and infra-red so what??
Anyone who flew above malaysian jungles please tell them how tall is the trees...ur sight is blocked..
the radar might track and lock..but how??
Even malaysia sent out so many search and rescue helicopters to track 1 object in the ground oso end up in failure..
you think just by sending 1 apache u gonna be able to be sure of tracking up to 10 polish tanks which might be hiding on the ground in the jungle just like sabah/sarawak scenario now? rofl. Apache waste of $$ only.. -
Why are we talking about tanks in a thread on the expansion ideas for the RSN? Take your fight somewhere else.