Best warships for operation in SEA waters

last SG · 2004-09-09T12:59:41+00:00

neither is better..thats where combined arms comes in..you need the small guys and the big guys.. yeah the MGB is good for now..i hope the RSN keeps the MGB...

Sardaukar SG

Which are the best warships for operation within waters surrounding Singapore?By warships,I mean to define which are the best warships;ship classes being MGB and higher which are suitable for operations by the RSN and are currently in development or on the market)

Our Deltas certainly render us the most powerful navy in SEA,but which other ships would add to our power?imo,a desirable ship would be a perhaps something similar to the Kongo-class destroyers of the Japanese Navy with low crew requirement,high endurance and plenty of firepower,geared towards anti-ship and anti-sub warfare.

bot_in_shop SG

Something small and stealthy to complement the Deltas and to replace our ageing Sea Wolf-class MGBs. Personally I like the Skjold and Visby… Been stealthy and small, they are able to hide in the numerous radar clutter that exists in busy straits… Furthermore, they do not require a large crew to maintain, which would certainly be beneficial to the RSN. While I do like the Arleigh Burgh and the Kongo class destroyers, I feel that they are not suited for use by Singapore, even their best weapon, their impressive anti-air coverage is more of a hindrance rather than help for it is likely to send a missile boosting into the extremely crowded aerial traffic that Singapore and its surrounding waters see a day…

fkh SG

I don't recommend Aegis destroyers although they are the most powerful surface warships in the world ( with SM-2 long range SAMs, and Harpoons, and Tomahawks.)

Because they are expensive to maintain.

I recommend DD-42 destroyers from UK .

( Can carry fair share of naval arsenals and 2 naval helos.)

foxtrout8 SG

I don't recommend Aegis destroyers although they are the most powerful surface warships in the world ( with SM-2 long range SAMs, and Harpoons, and Tomahawks.)

Aegis is a combat system, it is not a destroyer or a frigate. The combat system consist of a command and decision computer with high processing capability and of course the phrased array AN/SPY1 radar.

A number of ships are equipped with the Aegis combat system that include the Arleigh Burke(s), Ticon-class Cruiser, Spain's F-100 Frigate. The system will be equipped in future ships such as the DDX and the Australian future combatant.

Thus it is not true that all Aegis equipped ships are armed with SM-2 Long ranged SAM and Tomahawks. For example, i do not see either of these weapon in the Nansen Frigate.

I recommend DD-42 destroyers from UK .

( Can carry fair share of naval arsenals and 2 naval helos.)

Actually, i do not see why do we need a larger ships such as a destroyer in which we can carry more weapons and naval helo.

In future naval warfare, certain roles of naval helo will be eroded by VTOL UAVs and UCAVs which can be as efficient as it's predecessor. In the context of Singapore where we dont have alot of manpower, i predict that the navy will go for more UAVs onced it is mature than to go for more helos. In my perspective, a frigate equipped with one naval helo, 2 VTOL UAV/UCAV and 1 Unmanned PV is enough.

I see that our current Delta Class is enough for our consumption currently and also for the future (maybe 30s years from now). If the strategic environment will to change then i will like to see a Delta with more punch, perhaps equipped with the A70 launcher which is capable of accomodating with Aster15/30 and Stormshadow cruisemissiles. Looking at the superstructure of the ship, the middle section which currently house the Harpoon certainly have space of 2 more quartart cells, i dunno would the RSN want to fill that up, but certainly it can be filled by with wire-guided anti-ship missiles while the current harpoon is replace by new generation ram-jet missiles. I believe that will be enough to accomodate any threat that will evolve in 15 years to 30 years time.

I believe the next class of ship to be replace will be our Challenger Class Submarines and the Patrol Vessels. For the case of the submarines, i will say it wont be replaced so soon, but it will be supplemented by new class of submarines in 10 years time and gradually then be replaced. The RSN show interest in the Viking and perhaps we should be looking forward to that.

Many of my friends from this forum as well as others, would want the MCV to go, however i do not see a need for it. The MCV can still provide a hell lot of letal punch and it certainly still have lots of value in littoral warfare up to 15 years time. By examining the Indonesian and Malaysian modernisation plan, the MCV still have it's place in the RSN.

I do see a need for the PV to be replace in perhaps 10 years time. I do not see that Visby as a good candidate because by that time, the Visby itself would be an old model already. Perhaps the PV will be replace by a new stealth class of PVs designed by STmarines. Their current design include a 21m Stealth Interceptor and a 81m Stealth patrol vessel, for which i find that the former is too small while the latter is too big. If im the head of STmarine, i will try to come out with a blueprint of a PV in-between the two current design to see the reaction of the navy. If the design is good, i do see that in the long run, the MCV might be replaced by it too.

SibeiSuayKia SG

Enemy just need to fire 1 missile and bye bye

1 huge battleship needs over few hundred people to operate..

if it sinks..the parents gonna kpkb..and the mindef gonna payout $$ as compensation to parents..

thats why our biggest navy ship oso lesser then 70 so as to maximise effect and minimize losses

Im thinking of about 30 speed boat mini ship mounted with tinier astros + some sorta auto reload and with a guided missile laucher , with a even faster engine..more sleek design to reduce wind resistance....with about 5 pple each..+ a new military smoke grenade launcher which can float after being fired to create distraction..+ rear mounted double stinger launcher?
(need a mini radar? ) The front has armor like a tank..

That means im saying about a floating tank at sea..

a computer automated machine gun..so person can control from inside..
the boat will be build with special carbon fibre with protection against machine guns..a little bit small that enemies cannot detect..

Specially designed cabin like the inside cabin of volvo..crumple zones..and good inside construction , reinforced steel and titanium, using honeycomb in the cross section..strong and durable cabin ..with steel reinforced pillars to support the boat even when there's a explosion..

Special engineering capabilities which makes the atom inside the boat , more rigid and closer in a sense..something like a diamond

Can sneak into the enemy's river..not just cruise on the sealanes and fight a war perhaps in a tiny sorta stream..and drop off some commandos

I think it will cost about less then 2 million for each of these special boats..
better then the raft which guards is using .

+ night vision windscreen in the front.

We can easily design it using auto cad ..
some of the technologies are quite possible

den increase delta to 10..

upgrade the current ships's engines and radars..

and..build 1 more offshore base..preferably south for the 30 mini ships..
with arnaments stuff etc

BTW , are the mistral launchers on our MCV effective against flying FA/18s?

when war comes , we use the 30 mini boats and split 15 - 15 before sending in the deltas and the PVs..

the mini boats will be used to attack the enemy base and fire at it..

the 15 boats will all spread out around enemy base and firing at the enemy's base..and ship construction and repair area..

then the 3 pple each out of 15 boats..total 45..will capture enemy's boats..

and use it against them..and coordinate back to the delta ^^

Specially ejection capabilities..which automatically follows the aircraft ejection system..when missle lock system detect missile aimed at it..
immediately..this will happen

1. Ships detect..
2. Electronic counter measures..
3. Jamming
4. If all else fails..

Ejection through a gap in the boat's bottom area..
thereby firing the personnel into the sea..of course 5 metres/10 metres , computer will identify missile size..

therefore..this craft is TIAN YI WU FENG (flawless)

cool huh?

No sub and aircraft systems though , configured for assault only =D
about 2 million to create..

SibeiSuayKia SG

We can choose to base the boat design range to be less then a few hundred km..

just chiong all the way secretly close to the shore..while using the machine gun to fire at the beaches..

Those Huge big cruisers..can be rounded up by my tiny ships..

imagine having to track down tiny little ships cornering around you..and simulatenously firing and destroying them before they lay a hand on you?

furthermore you woundn't be able to detect it..only at visual range that means u got very little reaction time...when see it..position the aiming cross hair and game over..firing on the cruisers..while speeding around in circles..

those pple trying to escape on lifeboats?

round them all up....weee..if only i got tht kind of navy..

or we can just load up a ship filled with alot of C4 explosives
and purchase 2 speed boat engines and put a remote control used on the UAV..

ram it also quite worth..

sgFish SG

well if you're speaking in terms of battleships (which none are in active service now), i'll let you know that one missile does shit to a BB. a BB's armor belts would prevent most subsonic anti ship missiles from even penetrating it. In ww2, the japanese battleship Musashi was subjected to twenty torpedo hits, seventeen bomb hits, and the destructive force of the detonation of sixteen near misses in the water before going down.

MCVs aren't armed with mistrals, they're armed with the Israeli Barak I system..the PVs and LSTs are armed with mistrals. i'm not sure abt the mistral's capability but it is relatively short ranged and more suited for use against low flying craft. I'm sure the Barak would do well against fighters though..

you think capturing enemy warships easy arh? if your little assault craft doesn't get cut to pieces by naval gunfire first. and do you think so easy to pilot an enemy vessel?

commandos already have their little fast craft thingy for river insertion already btw.

these boats would have little significant use in terms of naval combat. how much ammunition for your 'mini astros' can a small boat carry, in addition to the machine gun, your 'steel reinforced pillars' and all that..and i would think that a small craft with this amount of shit in it can't really go fast, so it defeats the purpose..and a small craft does not have the endurance to go so far out in open waters and make it back alive..oh, and no matter how 'steel-reinforced' your boat is, its still a small boat. naval gunfire would make short work of it, and it would spray the crew with molten steel when hit.

a boat is not like a fighter aircraft. the crew does not sit in one place all the time, and having an ejection system in it is kinda stupid.

oh. and 2 million bucks x 30 can get you much better stuff..like more frigates or MCVs, or even a new class of stealth corvettes like the Swedish Visby..or maybe some missile-armed subs *wishful thinking*

sgFish SG

your boats would be obliterated by shore based artillery if you're thinking of strafing the beaches -_-

oh and i'm sure cruisers travel alone don't they. so that they are easily brought down by subs and fighter squadrons right?

man..small craft would be detected, at the very least, at the horizon, and they can train their guns at you long before they even get close..if you actually manage to get close, the CIWS systems of cruisers would literally cut small craft to pieces.

yeah you can load up a small ship with a lot of explosives and drive them into the enemy. but in this case, its most prolly an open war situation, and the crew wouldn't be caught off guard like the USS Cole was.. and as i said, small craft are easily disabled, especially unmanned ones..

SibeiSuayKia SG

Oh ya..re: last time BattleShip :

Note that no guided weapons was used last time.

a large number of torpedo missed.

the difference between 1942 warheads and now.

Im just saying 1 exocet hitting a hull area of the battleship and causing it to sink.

In 1942 and technology , the weaponries used by the navies is very very different i would say.

Mini Astros im refering to about short range 1 about less then 1 metre long ,
with a lower range

Re: Error ive made sorry , thought all the patrol vehicles using mistral...

Naval ships rarely use their gun now , considering that in WW II , over 10 x how many how many inch guns fitted from from to back of a battleship..

and furthermore , now more and more ships are using missile systems..
in comparison to

Even in F-22 and eurofighters, the engineers also brainstormed whether to use the gun now..

in other words..mounting a gun on a jet fighter is useless..
fires all it's bullet in less then a minute

and similarly , you got all the high tech system , so why bother ?

If im not wrong , our neighbour's naval ship only has 1 mounted gun..
how can it REACT faster then 15 mini boats with Astros pointed at it?

Boy it's getting crazy..Volvo cars has a steel reinforced chamber inside and it still can go above 200km on the fast version..

Who says we gonna use heavy materials like iron to build the whole ship?
It can still have material strength and ability to withstand resistant even with latest light materials without compromising anything

Its the same thing im refering to , the commandos fast insertion craft together with the mini boats together..

If your saying that the mini boat is vulnerable, wouldn't the fast insertion craft be more vulnerable?

And re:Shore artilery , im saying that the craft is meant to deploy FAST before any enemy got time to react..

Furthermore , a shore artilery takes time to aim and reload and u wanna hit a super fast moving craft at sea which is also at the same time firing bullets at you?

The concept ive mentioned about is a new style in which u eject the naval crewmen into the water..through the opening of a gap..
rather then to inflate a lifeboat slowly and jump inside when a 1 mach missile is heading towards u..

Yup and regarding the engine , we can always use fuel-saving stuff and noiseless stuff.. , regarding thie engine..don't think we will be deploying over 200km.. so i think it would be more deployed for speed ..

you mentioned about the small boat returning back to base,
Who the heck cares about the small boat after it has done it's mission??
Regarding returning to base , it will be a concept whereby when it has done finished it's mission and a rapid insersion naval force by the 4 LSTs, will berth inside the LST and re-fuel offshore.

In this case here, we're assuming we're taking first strike , if we take 2nd strike after enemy has mobilized and etc.. i think this concept is totally off..
cause its meant to be STEALTHY and invisible on the enemy's coastline..

So thereby assuming the vast area of the enemy's coastline and how tough it is to be spotted before a real war starts, i think the possibility is less then 20%

Just imagine, a small LITTLE boat going through over hundreds of islands..
i mean those closer to us 1 lar..

HaHaHa...Even a fighter pilot would have difficult spotting..somemore in dark grey naval and regarding helicopter, think we just throw in a stinger and some missiles together with it to settle it

If enemy has over 1000km of coastline..each PV has radar to detect about 50km of coastline..enemy will need to SPREAD out over 20 boats..
considering which idiot would actually deploy all simutaneously.!

1. If any of our Seawolf-class PV faces a much heavily equipped
Russian or American Naval ship for example
Kidd-Class Destroyers or Soverenmmy-class destroyers..
1:1.., to fight the enemy we might lose

2. Thereby assuming that we would be sending about 4:1
to outnumber the enemy we would win

In a open match of our navy , the airforce and land is pretty good
not considering the stealth frigates which our navy has

We are quite at a dis-advantage in comparison to their electronics and fire control system..

Therefore , even if we use our SeaWolf-Class PV it is even worser when it comes to dealing with more sophisticated ships..

1. They can detect us.
2. They got much more advanced anti missile missile system.
3. They paid about 7-8 times more for each vessel.
4. Advanced Radar

Considering we lose about 100+ lives in exchange for a whole destroyer..
Why not adopt the concept of mini boats?

if the mini boats rush..only about 1 or 2 destroyed lesser lives lost ..meanwhile the miniboat can choose to destroy the enemy..thru it's C4 or
astros, firing on the weak area

In any way , which u choose to face off the enemy "destroyer"
There will surely be ways in which u might lose..

For example , the Seawolf PV might get hit by a tactical nuke sunburn..
and whether is it small or big..all the crew also gone..
it also reduces casualties...

The mini boat likewise has it's pros and has it's vulnerabilities..

Like for example people might fire RPG at it..
But considering today's ship which used missile system more..

in about 20 years time..no one will use gun..

Then we will make use of a navy's which doesn't use any naval gun..
to charge and test it's missile system

The reason why the mini boats will win is that simply
Humans assume, they assume enemy always come in another large size destroyer..hence they are not ready to deal with another tiny threat..

and btw..when a boat about 5km away which u spotted reaching about 2-3 minutes..is 1 minute before aiming the astros at you..would you have enough time to react ?

SibeiSuayKia SG

Can't even detect..u might launch a missile at it..
But can you hit it?

and even if you hit, how many u kill 5?

and when u kill the other mini boats will avenge already?
the astros will be pointed on the ship's command system already..
game over..

The key is to adopt a strategy...
Just look at USS cole..just 1 hit on it's hull..the whole ship disable..
just like the astros..who says we need to carry 100 of them in order to kill?
Just load up to it's max..and fire..
Nowadays you don't sink ships..you disable and cripple by just hitting the critical section..

sgFish SG

with reference to SibeiSuayKia's above 2 posts

whether its guided or not does not matter. 10 guided torp hits are the same as 100 unguided torps launched but 10 hit.

oh, and and one exocet isn't going to do much against the armor belts of a BB. you need something like the SS-N-22 sunburn to dent it.

during the vietnam war, the early version of the american F-4 Phantom were not armed with guns, hence their pilots fought the north vietnamese as if their aircraft were missile platforms, and this led to poor performance against the viets. the later versions had the in built gun, and coupled together with the USN top gun postgraduate course on fighter tactics and doctrine, it made their kill ratio much higher, leading to the USAF setting up the Red Flag programme, similar to top gun.

coming back to point, naval vessels aren't likely to do away with guns in favour of missiles, as guns are essential for point defence against incoming missiles or small craft. our neighbour's vessels are sufficiently adequate to deal with a mass of small craft. their Lekiu-class frigates are armed with a 57mm/70 bofors gun that has a fire rate of 220 shells/min, and 2 30mm cannons with af fire rate of 650 rounds/min up to 10km. the Kasturi-class frigates are armed with a french Creusot-Loire 100mm A gun, + all the above, and the laksamana corvettes and Meko PVs are armed with fast firing 76mm/62 Oto melera guns, and the mekos have a 30mm cannon too. all these fast firing guns with reasonable ranges would cut down masses of small craft easily.

oh..and shore recon is done by aircraft and UAVs, not lines of patrol vessels -_-

a multiple rocket launcher mounted on a moving vessel would require advanced targeting systems, and this would probably not be found on your small craft.

and a seawolf class is a PATROL vessel. meaning it does not engage enemy heavy surface combatants one on one. when faced with a heavier class of enemy warship, you do not go toe-to-toe with it with less heavily armed ones. you take a submarine and give it a torpedo up its stern, or use the stealth frigates and lob a few harpoons at them, and get away before they know what hit them. using masses of small craft means they have to get deep within the detection/firing range of the enemy ship, and risk high attrition rates from concentrated gunfire. they might not get their job done, as by relying on spraying rockets at enemy ships, you are taking large chances, and in naval warfare, you don't.

with a 2 million dollar price tag per boat, you might want to get an F-16 instead. Faster, more versatile, and packs a heavier punch.

SibeiSuayKia SG

F-16 is expensive..A Block 60 version will set back alot of $$

With regards to refurbished training submarines the Challenger-Class ..doubt a second hand submarine can do much..with WhiteHead Torpedos..

someHow i still feel Scorpene is a better choice..

Ships are vulnerable to those U-boats stuff during WW II..

But nowaday's ship has advanced capabilities against subs rather then depth charges used in the past..

F-16 is indeed useful at sea.. but i think there would be some problems with regards to costs and expenses....

Anyway , i feel that a plane by itself would be also too expensive to lose in times of war..unless really bo pian..

almost $50 million USD each....now for block 60 those UAE 1s

Furthermore a F-16 C/D crash itself might be in-evitable..but during times of war..costs are going to surge very high , if we were to use a expensive aircraft 1 by itself in comparison to 30 small mini boats something like the police CG boats fitted with missiles..

I might take F-16 if it calls for precision strikes, but our reserves will deplete fast in times of war , so my thinking is that, if we can use cheaper craft
to fight first rather then F-16 , other then comparing overall effectiveness and efficiency..

Something like a low-budget army which suits us best, gotta maximise our dollar value..

Anyone knows the breakdown of our defense spending?
Please tell me or pm me the link, thx!

LazerLordz SG

We cannot afford to get anything bigger than a medium destroyer without having to invest more money in developing a support and replenishment fleet which will sponge up funds from other more needy sectors like Infantry and the homeland security sectors.I think something slightly smaller than the Arleigh-Burke class of destroyers should be our biggest class of ships in the foreseeable future.

sgFish SG

the challenger-class does not use the whitehead which is a 324mm lightweight anti-sub torp. It has 4 533mm tubes and 2 400mm tubes. the 533mm torps should pack enough punch to take out or disable most surface warships today.

yeah any other sub would be a better choice compared to the challenger, and i suppose that or another class of more modern submarines would be the RSNs next major procurement.

the F-16 is indeed expensive. however, it gives added flexibility and provides more bang for the buck than a flotilla of missile armed fast attack craft (in my opinion) and the total cost of the boats would far supersede that of the F-16 if you take into account weapon systems (you said to arm it with automated machine guns, stingers, and..whatever anti-shipping missile that can be fitted on it) and sensor.

i'd like to know..in times of war, would we still continue purchasing military hardware like fighter aircraft?

ray243 SG

ok, could singapore buy a DD(x) class destroyer,also known as DD21 or LCS(littoral combat ship)

http://peos.crane.navy.mil/lcs/images/LCS3_ship_atsea.jpg and
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21/index.html

foxtrout8 SG

DD(x) is not known as the DD21 but the latter is part of the family of DD(x). The DD(x) is a future ship program which include new cruisers, destroyers and also ships for littoral warfare. The DD(x) is a rather interesting ship. Equipped with the Aegis Combat system, it is armed with 2 helicopters, 80 VLS cells, 2 155mm Cannon and run by gas turbine generator and magnetic driven propulsion system. The large stealthy ship only require a crew of 95.

The LCS is a littoral combat concept project for the USN . Currently there is 3 plateforms available for the project contributed by General Dynamics, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

The USN requirement for the LCS is rather different from the requirement by the RSN. The USN-LCS plateforms are designed to work rather independent of other elements, away from a centralised base or mother ship. While the Singapore's concept allow a greater level of dependence of other plateform. The operation radius of our ships for littoral combat is also much smaller.

As i said that the LCS do not fit our requirement, i do not see a need of it within the RSN.

ray243 SG

ok thanks for the info

foxtrout8 SG

U are welcome.

http://www.fas.org/man/index.html
You can access this website for more information.

|-|05| SG

Im thinking of about 30 speed boat mini ship mounted with tinier astros + some sorta auto reload and with a guided missile laucher , with a even faster engine..more sleek design to reduce wind resistance....with about 5 pple each..+ a new military smoke grenade launcher which can float after being fired to create distraction..+ rear mounted double stinger launcher?
(need a mini radar? ) The front has armor like a tank..

That means im saying about a floating tank at sea..
That means im saying about a floating tank at sea..

a computer automated machine gun..so person can control from inside..
the boat will be build with special carbon fibre with protection against machine guns..a little bit small that enemies cannot detect..

Specially designed cabin like the inside cabin of volvo..crumple zones..and good inside construction , reinforced steel and titanium, using honeycomb in the cross section..strong and durable cabin ..with steel reinforced pillars to support the boat even when there's a explosion..

Special engineering capabilities which makes the atom inside the boat , more rigid and closer in a sense..something like a diamond

Can sneak into the enemy's river..not just cruise on the sealanes and fight a war perhaps in a tiny sorta stream..and drop off some commandos

I think it will cost about less then 2 million for each of these special boats..
better then the raft which guards is using .

+ night vision windscreen in the front.

We can easily design it using auto cad ..
some of the technologies are quite possible

den increase delta to 10..

upgrade the current ships's engines and radars..

and..build 1 more offshore base..preferably south for the 30 mini ships..
with arnaments stuff etc

BTW , are the mistral launchers on our MCV effective against flying FA/18s?

when war comes , we use the 30 mini boats and split 15 - 15 before sending in the deltas and the PVs..

the mini boats will be used to attack the enemy base and fire at it..

the 15 boats will all spread out around enemy base and firing at the enemy's base..and ship construction and repair area..

then the 3 pple each out of 15 boats..total 45..will capture enemy's boats..

and use it against them..and coordinate back to the delta ^^

Specially ejection capabilities..which automatically follows the aircraft ejection system..when missle lock system detect missile aimed at it..
immediately..this will happen

1. Ships detect..
2. Electronic counter measures..
3. Jamming
4. If all else fails..

Ejection through a gap in the boat's bottom area..
thereby firing the personnel into the sea..of course 5 metres/10 metres , computer will identify missile size..

therefore..this craft is TIAN YI WU FENG (flawless)

cool huh?

No sub and aircraft systems though , configured for assault only =D
about 2 million to create..

fat chance my friend.
Look at it this way.
special carbon fibre F1 cars.......cost around 4 million a copy(for just the chasis engine not included..And they fit 1 man....and are around 2m long.Meaning if you're boat was say around 8m it would cost 4 times as much at least.
Throw in the 2 million dollar computer systems you'd need and the around 1million dollar engine and you're grossly over budget.
Next up is how you want the boat to move up rivers?Well man...that mean you're keel depth would have to be no more then 1.8m?That however gives you the problem of moving fast.Because at 30knots with waves you're boat will be bouncing around like mad.....so you need a deep keel to prevent that from happening either that or you add wings like a hydrofoil but that makes ur keel depth alot deeper.(if i'm not wrong the big carriers have 10m-15m keels)
Also while carbon fibre is very strong it is not very tough(toughness is how much impact loading it can take before breaking)Meaning it would break easily.Next up.....we have the problem of weight.Having a fast ship means having a light ship and wanting the ship to be small doesnt help much at all.A light ship also cannot handle the blow back of firing the mini astros you so propose.A fast moving ship even worse....since the blow back would most likely cause all sorts of problems for the ship.There was once a pirate with a 25knot capable speed boat which was around 4m long and armed with a machine gun(not sure what type though)Moving at it's max speed and firing the gun would have made the boat flipped over.Ejecting from a fast moving boat will kill you honestly......or at least hurt u alot...even with ACES II seats.
using auto cad? haha most likely we're use other more advance programs.....since autocad is very very very basic and only draws 2D..... Cool
Oh yea and like some 1 said.......anything hitting it would flip the damn boat over.....no need armor. Heck u miss the boat but create wave also can tip the boat over liao

We can choose to base the boat design range to be less then a few hundred km..

just chiong all the way secretly close to the shore..while using the machine gun to fire at the beaches..

Err...boy ar....few 100km is very far loh....and chionging would make ur fuel consumption go up alot.As a boater i should know.

imagine having to track down tiny little ships cornering around you..and simulatenously firing and destroying them before they lay a hand on you?

furthermore you woundn't be able to detect it..only at visual range that means u got very little reaction time...when see it..position the aiming cross hair and game over..firing on the cruisers..while speeding around in circles..

Yup and regarding the engine , we can always use fuel-saving stuff and noiseless stuff.. , regarding thie engine..don't think we will be deploying over 200km.. so i think it would be more deployed for speed ..

use sonar loh.....moving at 30knots....easy to pick you out lah......30knots...bouncing up and down.....high speed engine....make alot alot alot of noise loh.Use a quieter engine you say?Well if you want fast.....you cant have quiet...unless you want use battery loh..but at 30knots you'd move like 5km then stop liao

If your saying that the mini boat is vulnerable, wouldn't the fast insertion craft be more vulnerable?

Yes it is.....somemore it's open top loh.But the whole point is to surprise them wad.

Furthermore , a shore artilery takes time to aim and reload and u wanna hit a super fast moving craft at sea which is also at the same time firing bullets at you?

shore arty will be behind Visual range lah....then they use UAV and guided rounds.....you screwed liao loh

So thereby assuming the vast area of the enemy's coastline and how tough it is to be spotted before a real war starts, i think the possibility is less then 20%

Just imagine, a small LITTLE boat going through over hundreds of islands..
i mean those closer to us 1 lar..

HaHaHa...Even a fighter pilot would have difficult spotting..somemore in dark grey naval and regarding helicopter, think we just throw in a stinger and some missiles together with it to settle it

hard to spot frm the air?! WTF?! you've high speed boat makes a freaking big and long wake man.....see the wake....then whack the front of it can liao!!!
At night leh? ur wake would glow.....even better! ahahah

Then we will make use of a navy's which doesn't use any naval gun..
to charge and test it's missile system

The reason why the mini boats will win is that simply
Humans assume, they assume enemy always come in another large size destroyer..hence they are not ready to deal with another tiny threat..

and btw..when a boat about 5km away which u spotted reaching about 2-3 minutes..is 1 minute before aiming the astros at you..would you have enough time to react ?

The US naval people also though that.......then they realised......if got no gun....how to give fire support!!! hence one of the DD(x) concepts is to deal with this!!!Besides a guided gun round is way cheaper

and btw..when a boat about 5km away which u spotted reaching about 2-3 minutes..is 1 minute before aiming the astros at you..would you have enough time to react ?

Horizon is around 80NM or 130km there abouts....and believe me....naval people have a good eye for spotting things that arent suppose to be in the sea

Just look at USS cole..just 1 hit on it's hull..the whole ship disable..

Big bomb....small ship without armour.

Next up let's talk about battleships.
They have been known to crash and saw off half a ship.Also ammo expolsions inside does not sink them often enuf.You see the thing is....a battleship is a floating hunk of steel....it wont be so easy to sink them even with a harpoon.I mean if lightly armoured crusiers can take 1 or 2 harpoon hits.....why cant a BB take more then that!?!

SibeiSuayKia SG

wah tiok flame lik siao liao!

wah the experienced navy can view outside with 130km range meh??

the artilery can hit moving targets so accurate? especially when target is moving?

My presumption is that.. when the target is moving , the artilery must fire a round which will be aimed at further down where the target is moving..

so if when ur firing..the target change course den how?

I do indeed now realise alot of vulnerabilities with tinier boats,
i also do realise alot of vulnearabilities with larger boats and patrol vessels..

so which 1 is better?