RSN Expansion ieas

last SG · 2004-07-20T13:11:17+00:00

Careful leh..argentina doesn't have any immediate threats other then Britain ...so whether they use spitfire or A-4 to patrol oso no problem ours leh..1 is...

Arena SG

Heavier armour might be good for Tanks... I dunno
But heavier armour for ships is useless... A missile doesn't need to hit a ship to make her sink... With a missile just scrap pass the upperdeck is enough to cause considerable damage, like in Faklands War... Like how HMS Sheffield goes to her graveyard... And no matter how heavier your armour is with the velocity (at least Mach 0. Cool of the most missile which is traveling it can pierce through it easily... Once it pierce through the ship's hull, even it doesn't detonate, it will cause great damage and needs a hell lotsa and tough damage control and will cripple the ship...

thus how thick does the hull needs to be just needs to satisfy the ship's requirement to tolerate against the level of sea state it wants and displacement...

the best protection against incoming missile, i think it's still ECM and ECCM...
Anti Missile Missile or CIWS is also a good help

Arena SG

anyway for RSN to be efficient and to win in any conflict, i think the most important is the people it has...

With the current ship culture of some or most ship... I serious doubt the crew's loyalty and resolve... If u were ever in the Navy then u will know...
The competency of some crew's in their own vocation's system, eg. GFCS, C2 which are important in war situation are seriously lacking... And they are not juniors or NSF but regulars with ard 3 yrs of service...

sgFish SG

oh...whats wrong?

SibeiSuayKia SG

Singapore's 1st tank u expect us to have super armor which can resist RPG

USA's tank building more den 50 years and still problems come out..
design no good etc etc

USA build tanks for 50 years..the m1 abrams oso will get quite damage in the side if get hit.

Singapore's 1 light armoured tank somemore and 1st one.
i saw the hell before, in army open house , not really that protective

i will only believe you if Mindef tested a RPG on a bionix armor
or if i ever get to sit in 1 and survive a combat. "ever"

Anyway i believe now in singapore...i think less then 20% would speak
the "National" Language

I believe armor now..is still important , but to certain extent, for example
if courageous had better armor , its back would not be sheared off

CX SG

Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:

i will only believe you if Mindef tested a RPG on a bionix armor
or if i ever get to sit in 1 and survive a combat. "ever"

the BX was designed and tested with survivability in mind... it CAN survive an RPG blast.

u see and touch the BX, it LOOKS flimsy... but the way to defeat RPG is NOT with thicker armour... if u knew how a HEAT warhead works, u'll know exactly what that means.

its a known principle of warfare... bigger guns always leads to attempts to make better shields... eventually, the guns always wins. so the way to defeat the guns is to outsmart it, not to deflect it.

I believe armor now..is still important , but to certain extent, for example if courageous had better armor , its back would not be sheared off

if the courageous had better armour, it will probably be underwater now. more armour = heavier, less nimble boat... the courageous was able to avoid a direct collission because it is light and agile...

a few seconds slower and it would have slammed into the hull of the ANI indonesia... SPLAT... like fly on a windscreen... thicker armour would've slowed it down and killed it.

SibeiSuayKia SG

BX is designed to survive a RPG blast..i know but did u really test it??
damn why not we secretly sell 20 of them to taiwan and if it gets destroy..
we will know the answer

Haiz robocop is so outdated =/
robocop is just the ultimate reminder of what ultimate armor could do

Courageous is nimble and agile definitely , thicker armour would slow it down , how about enough armor at that time so that it becomes slow so it can break before even coming close to ANL?

branzzz SG

you meant, brake? more armour=more weight=more inertia. if you've even been to a sec sch physics lesson you'll learn this, sound like you dropped out at psle though. you try putting on more armour and it'll take even longer to brake. you've touched a bionix and you know it cannot withstand an rpg? wow, saf should recruit you as a tangkee.

BX is designed to survive a RPG blast..i know but did u really test it??
damn why not we secretly sell 20 of them to taiwan and if it gets destroy..
we will know the answer

wah, with these two statements you just contradicted yourself. you don't know how armour works but you touch can know it won't withstand. then suddenly you knew and tested other ppl's credibility. joker la you.

CX SG

Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:

BX is designed to survive a RPG blast..i know but did u really test it??

how many times do u have to piss all over yourself before someone tells u to hold it out when u pee???

do u know HOW a HEAT warhead works?

don't talk cock until u answer the question... do u know how a HEAT warhead works?

Courageous is nimble and agile definitely , thicker armour would slow it down , how about enough armor at that time so that it becomes slow so it can break before even coming close to ANL?

u wanna redefine the laws of friction and inertia??? for your info, the only way a ship can stop is not by pulling on a handbrake like a car... the only way it can stop is by putting the screws in reverse... forget dropping anchor... at that speed, your anchor chain will break. u only drop anchor AFTER u stop...

so under the best circumstances, it will take a few minutes before it will start to slow down... and the heavier the ship, the longer this will take.

the Courageous was fast. they were lucky to get away with only the stern sliced off. if they were slow, they would've slammed into the hull of the ANI Indonesia... no armour can help u oredy...

SibeiSuayKia SG

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 point

the HEAT means high explosive anti tank

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT

and btw those 2 statements do not contradict myself

the 1st and 2nd post , were in replies to different pple

the 2nd post is for in replying cuz i was doubtful about bionix armor capabilities

the 1st is talking about ST's tank building experience

1st tank and walking on untested ground.

somemore no test firing on it

and bionix don't have reactive armour! how to counter latest version of russian RPG-7
o.O

eurofighter SG

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.

SibeiSuayKia SG

aircraft carrier not armored lol

eurofighter SG

Well show some proof that it's armoured before you laugh to death.
You're just plain ignorant.

SibeiSuayKia SG

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..

Jazzswing SG

I think he mistaken 'hull' for 'armour'. Laughing 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.

SibeiSuayKia SG

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

Paladin SG

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.. Wink
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?

branzzz SG

haha, i'm replying to you simply cos its so fun.

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

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.

laser51088 SG

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.

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.

Paladin SG

Well u guys probably already knew it..
but just for those who might not know, like me.. Wink

"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."

CX SG

Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:

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 point

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.

the HEAT means high explosive anti tank

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT

u provided the link... so how come u missed the following lines?

The 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.

« Previous Page Next Page »