RSAF NEW TOYS

last SG · 2002-01-30T23:58:00+00:00

i heard that the malaysian are buying the F/A 18 superhornet. but i still think the EF 2000 is better but if the russian missile can configured to launch fro...

YourFather SG

I just got this statement released by MBDA:

A total of 200 Aster 15 Naval missiles have already been ordered to equip 11 naval defense systems, intended for the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the three F 1300S frigates Al Riyadh, Makkah and Al Dammal ordered by the Saudi Arabian Royal Navy, the second Italian aircraft carrier Andrea Doria and six foreign frigates

Any chance those 6 frigates are our frigates?

Joe Black SG

Well, your guess is as good as mine, but I do believe it is RSN's. Man, I wish it was ESSM though. Wonder if RSN is also going to add a CIWS weapon like Phanlax or Goalkeepers. If they have also bought Exocets for the La Fayettes instead of Harpoon...

YourFather SG

Your wish may just come thru, U know.... There was 2 articles from foreign newspapers, that Singapore ordered Exocets for the frigates. However, nobody can verify whether the info is accurate or not, though. This piece of info surprised quite a few people from another biard, me included. Why get Exocets when you can get Harpoons, and already got Harpoons? Performance wise, I place my bet on the Harpoon. Only reasons I can think of for having the Exocet is:
1. Integration costs for installing and making the Harpoon combat system compatible to a French design, which would most probably have to be paid for ourselves, or the integration done ourselves.
2. The French are willing to sell them cheap when they come in a package with the La Fayettes.
3. A diversity of ASMs, perhaps?

1 more thing: do you think they will be fitted with a last ditch defense system, like the Goalkeeper or Phalanx? If so, I hope they go for SeaRAM- a good, multipurpose missile.

[This message has been edited by YourFather (edited 01 February 2002).]

Shotgun SG

sea-RAM considered as a CIWS???

YourFather SG

well, yes. RAM is the CIWS replacement for the Phalanx, just except its not fielded widely in the USN (time and money concerns), that’s all.

Joe Black SG

Actually USN started deploying some RAM on their warships to complement the Phalanx. Nothing beats putting 6000 rounds of leads towards incoming missiles.

The German Navy has also started putting RAM onboard their convettes and Frigates.

I think Phalanx makes more sense to be put on hte La Fayettes given RSN has already chosen to put Aster 15 SAM. Anyway, the Block 1A and 1B Phalanx looks like a very capable weapon for both airborne and sea surface targets.

Shotgun SG

The phalanx, okay though small, will still reflect radar waves. Our frigates are like supposed stealthy right? Maybe it the phalanx will just pop up from the hull when needed. shrugs his shoulders

YourFather SG

Nope nope. the SeaRAM is different from the RAM. The RAM is currently used as the 'outer ring' of terminal defence, with Phalanx constituting the 'inner ring'. However, the Phalanx's limitation is slowly becoming apparent in the USN's transformation to a littoral navy, and SeaRAM would replace the Phalanx and RAM combination by combining the sensors of the Phalanx with the RAM missiles.
1 more thing. RAMs with the HAS upgrade (just a software upgrade) will also have the capability to engage low flying aircraft as well as surface craft. Nice feature, eh?

Shotgun SG

But would the seaRAM come together with a gattling gun? I mean, the “wall of lead” can still a serve a purpose.

YourFather SG

It will only come with an 11-round RAM launcher, replacing the Gattling gun. The gun’s range is deemed too short for future threats.

Shotgun SG

11 round only? What if more than 11 makes it thru the outer SAM layer?

Viper52 SG

Prepare the lifeboats lor...LOL

Seriously, maybe I'm old fashioned, but I still do believe gun have a role to play in todays warfare, albeit a less role. Be it aircraft guns or lead-spitting CIWS on board ships or tactical AA guns(SP of course), I feel that a gun/missile mix would be the most ideal situation.

I feel that the removal of guns from ships CIWS or the RAF's decision to remove the guns from the Typhoon is a mistake. The last time designers tried to remove guns from aircraft in the 60s, USAF/VPAF pilots were left with nothing more lethal than their helmets to throw at each other once they were out of missiles(which happended quite often). Missile technology might have improved by leaps and bounds since then, but I just feel that a gun should be there as an added assurance. Besides, it'd be perfect when a ground based target of opportunity shows up...

And gun CIWS on ships? HMS Sheffield would have been saved had the RoyalNavy added a CIWS of any sort on her in 1982.

Shotgun SG

Lets see, was it one well placed Exocet that sunk the Sheffield??

Agreed. The last time USAF removed guns from their Phantoms, it left their pilots defenseless when they ran out of missiles. The MiG-17s and 19s still retained their 20mms practically whooped their ass when their missiles were expended.

Guns should be the retained on all combat aircraft and ships. Personally, CIWS should be retained on ships as the real last ditch weapon.

Joe Black SG

Actually, Phalanx block 1B is more capable than just last ditch defence. Furthermore, it can be operating autonomously from the main weapon control system on board. Sheffield wouldn't have been sunk if their computers that controlled the radars and weapons did not shut down unexpectedly just prior to engage the deadly Exocet. Had Sheffield have CIWS onboard that could operate autonomously, then the Exocet wouldn't have hit it. Right after the Falkland war, Royal Navy armed all their ships with Phalanx and the newly built one with Goalkeepers.

As for the stealth expect of it, look at Taiwan's La Fayattes. They are also armed with Phalanx. Look at USN DDG-51, they also each have a pair onboard. There is no compromising when it comes to the ship defence, stealth or no stealth. There are also no completely invisible ships including La Fayattes and Visbys. The stealth features they have only help to reduce their detection range and hopefully this give the stealth ships the advance of firing their SSM first.

Lastly, the radar reflection of the Phalanx CIWS is not that bad. It will compromise RSN La Fayattes stealth features.

YourFather SG

11 rounds may seem a little short, but having 11 ASMs actually passing thru (all aimed at one ship some more!) would be quite a miracle, considering the multi-layered defense system provided by AEGIS with SM-2s and ESSMs, with targeting augmented by the wonderful CEC system. The only problem is that the RAM missiles have to be hand reloaded. The missiles are more effective than the Phalanx, as studies have shown. It's designed to be able to counter the latest series of Russian SAMs, such as the Brahmos, Yahkont, Sunburn etc, which the Phalanx Block 1B is much less able to handle.
As for the Typhoon, did you see today's newspaper? They reported that the Typhoon had stealth, which was rather misleading. True, while in a clean config, from the frontal aspect, it has a much lower radar signature, due to its S-shaped inlets, but put any meaningful warload on the plane(you ain't going to battle in a clean config, right?) and whatever 'stealth' you claim is BS.
Also, the Typhoon without guns is only for the Brits, as they wanna 'save money', which is a pretty retarded way to do it, cause a study showed that they didn't really save much money at all, and the loss in combat effectiveness wasn't worth it.

Viper52 SG

The Sheffield was hit by an Exocet, one of 2 launched by a pair of Argentine Navy Super Etendards. The missile actually did not explode, but its rocket motor started fires that raged out of control. She was taken in tow with hopes of eventual recovery, but South Atlantic weather caused her to sink. The 2nd Exocet was never found.

The VPAF MiGs never actually whooped the Phantoms. In fact they didn't even whoop the F-105 Thunderchief(Thuds actually killed more MiGs than the other way around). But if you read books like And Kill MiGs(Squadron Signal Publications), you'll be intrigued by how many occasions USAF/USN pilots were left quivering in anger when a MiG showed up in guns range in front of them but got away because they had no 20mm...

Viper52 SG

Yes. 11 ASMs getting through the outer defence layers may be quite implausible, but would it be worth staking a cruiser, destroyer of even frigate on that off chance? Just spend a couple more million bucks to zap that last missile, rather than lose a whole ship would seem like a good investment wouldn't it?

The removal of guns on RAF Typhoons to save $$$ is indeed retarded. A guy on AFM commented that if the RAF bought 231 cannon-armed Typhoons instead of the 232 w/o cannons they intend to, they could save more money. I hate to say this, but British defence policy makers have constantly proven throughout history that they are not too smart, there are more than sufficient examples of that.

I've read the Typhoon article today, to me that article looks like one of the many articles on the Eurocopter Tiger I've read in 1998, glorifying its strengths blah blah blah. In the end, we bought the Apache. I had a feeling then that the articles were meant to wrangle more concessions out of the Americans(like Longbow radar), and I feel again that this is the first of many Typhoon article we'll see. (to wrangle more concessions out of Dassault or Boeing??). read the last sentence of the article, get the hint anyone? *wink*

YourFather SG

11 ASMs getting past the CEC augmented air defense system? Too highly improbable. And U just dont ripple fire these ASMs like nobody’s business, those ASMs cost $$, U know….

Shotgun SG

Viper, you are right. The F-4 Still holds the record for shooting down the most migs.

Anyway, the article on the typhoon seems to concentrate a lot on glorifying the plane. Doesn't really say anything about the plane's ability in specific situations. Well, I guess it is the straits times and not the "Straits Aviation Daily"

Viper52 SG

Somehow, reading the article, it just gives me the impression that the decision makers aren't totally satisfied with the Typhoon and are leaning some other way. The last 2 paragraphs seem to stress on the training agreements thing and although it mentions the US having an advantage as we have training detachments there, it fails to mention the French detachment.

I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much in between the lines, but I see a repeat of the RSAF attack helo scenario mentioned in my post above...

« Previous Page Next Page »