RSN,what abt a battleship?

last SG · 2004-02-29T11:17:21+00:00

Not surprising....since those buggers took a 8inch naval gun or something like that and put in on a tank.....a massive 200ton tank.... Oh and while the BB is...

Sardaukar SG

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 Smile .Imagine,Police Coast Guard getting military-grade Missile Gunboats.

tripwire SG

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.

CX SG

i'm not veteran lah... i only post here cos i bo liao Mr. Green

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.

|-|05| SG

Well if u went to the AA2004 u’d see some concepts frm ST marine….3 new ship concept designs!! All nice….

Marco_Simone SG

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...

RussianPower SG

I have an idea that can solve the land use problem in singapore and the manpower problems in singapore.

Firstly what we need are battle islands. Imagine giant floating platforms linked together. For servicing, each individual platforms can be towed back to CNB for repairs. As for manpower problems, we can have the entire base transplanted onto the base. We won't have a need to find new people since people who can work on mindef HQ can work on the floating platforms.

We have no problems making floating platforms. The US government even contracted ST Marine to build a offshore platform for surveillance purposes.

We can have even airbases that can launch F-16s and F-15s. Currently only F-18, Rafale and Su-33 (su-27 variant) are naval capable.

The best part is that these bases are mobile. Somewhere in the south china sea. That mitigates the first strike vulerability we have. Then we can lower our need for "extra" forces to counteract that threat. This translates to lower manning requirements.

Blockhead SG

Someone asked what chould be done with the present missile gunboats? I guess they are a little bit too much for the police coast guard, since the PCG don't have much use for missiles... Safe bet is probably to put them in a dry dock for a bit and modernise the boat a little, and then eventually selling them to another navy which may need them more....

then again, strip it of missiles, guns and associated systems, i suppose i won't mind having one for a fast houseboat!. Laughing

Groovee SG

hmm. cool idea. while we're at that, y dont we build gundams as well. den when ppl attack our battle isles, our gundams can jump out and shoot them! Mr. Green

crap aside, it feasible, mayb a few missile battle isle may be helpful towards our defence and deterrence. howeva, such installations will oso need more guards.(imagine our isle being towed away under our noses Laughing ), big problem. singapore no babies, no guards. i have an easier solution: place 155m howitzers on the top of hdb flats in woodlands and aim them at our dear neighbour. =D much less hassle.

Sardaukar SG

Wah lau! Shocked .Seriously,most original and effective idea I have heard about deterrence.Best way to counter their MLRS system.You shoot me with rockets,I shoot you with 155 mm Howitzers from every bloody HDB roof in the whole bloody island at Johor Bahru.

Now that is deterrence.or maybe overkill.

solaris SG

From a civil engineering point of view, I do not believe that the roof are sufficiently well reinforced to withstand the recoil of 155mm. The placement of the howitzer on the roof top would immoblise the 155, leading them vulnerable to counter battery. The fixtion of them would prevent them from being deploy for other missions which are equally important. It would be blazingly obvious to your intention if you see 155 sprouting up on roof top all over the place. Regarding the floating island concept, this idea is being proposed for as a replacement for the US Kadena Air Force base in Okinawa. It would be prohibitively expensive, would require a high manpower expenditure and they are fixed assets. There are manpower requirements in MINDEF and you cannot just transfer them. From another posting [DefensE cost is crippiling Very Happy STA], surely there are better ways to spend our dollars.

solaris SG

Another addendum to the battle island concept. These mobile bases are not neccessary invulnerable to first strike. You would want to base them a distance not too far from Singapore so as to allow the assets base on them to be usable in a crisis. Looking at the geography of the region, they will probably be within range of any adversary air bases. You would need to invest heavily as well in their defense since they would be isolated outpost and cannot be effectively reinforced. They would turn out to be prime targets for attacks. There are numerous other disadvantages that I mentioned as well.

Marco_Simone SG

battleships for RSN and now island bases? You people have fantastic imagination…

RussianPower SG

The battle island I have in mind is not as huge as to be immobile. It is not the same as the U.S. base concept. Imagine an aircraft carrier but much larger.

As for the deployment, of course it's not going to be deployed in the straits... the only time it's going to be there is when parts of it are towed for servicing.

In the case of defensibility, do you think our airbases/army camps are defensible in the event that our enemy, whoever it may be, attacks first? Is there any secret that we can keep in this crowded island of ours?

As for the cost, think of the amount of land that could be freed up for commercial use if most of the airbases/ military bases are put to sea?

Why do you think most nuclear nations put their arsenal in submarines? France puts 90% in SSBNs. Britain intends to have 100%.

RussianPower SG

South China Sea and the Indian Ocean are very big places.

Reinforced? Do you think we can be reinforced in Singapore?

Why do you think americans are putting their nuclear deterrent on submarines? Are they invulnerable to first strike? No? but hell you can't keep track of them reliably.

Isn't Changi Airport, Paya Lebar Airport, Tengah Airport prime targets?

Fighters flying CAP are hell better than SAMs on the ground. Even with "outdated" SAMS even the americans had to go in with their tomahawks, F117s and B2s before they let their F-18s soften the targets futher.

hotwire SG

a battle island or island base would only cause chaos... this will make targeting for any aggressors simple... you have to think of the human factor in this... won't it put the lives of those living under theses batteries at risk? construction of these batteries publicly would upset these people living under these batteries and definately lead to international intervention by all sorts of unions. i definately won't be able to sleep at night knowing that my roof is a possible target for any crazed nation to strike at.

mobile batteries would make more sense as they're harder to target and can be moved as and when needed. with regards to national security i think we should not get it confused with the showing off of our power. We're rather safe considering the US use our island to berth some of the carriers and destroyers every couple of months.

epImetheus SG

the straits are too small for container ships,oil tankers and battleships Confused to use together.

hotwire SG

thats not true, we have a deep habour that allows any ships to berth here.. even the biggest. if not how would our port do its business? with regards to the acquistion of a battleship, logistically we can and our waters allow it... but its a matter of whether its feasible or not considering we have no interests to protect overseas other than pedra branca...

|-|05| SG

Too small not too shallow......

solaris SG

Hello

Well before I go on, just to clarify that I am obviously not terribly enthusiastic about the battleship and island bases in our context. I guess I did not apply a strict interpretation to the term "mobile". I meant that the mobility is not that of a ship and such and cannot be deployed flexibly. I never did assume that you mentioned that it would be deployed in the straits. Obviously such platforms can only be deployed in the South China Sea with its proximity to foreign air bases. A large relatively immobile base is of a different visible profile than a SSBN. A submerged SSBN in the Atlantic Ocean is very different from a large Nimitz class size object in the South China Sea. Of course I fully subscribed to the advantage of having a submarine based nuclear deterrent. I am merely stating that the context is different. One possible use of such a platform if I hold your argument of freeing up land space would be to perharps to be used it as an fix extension of a base instead of reclaming from the sea.

Nothing is 100% defensible; we can only try our best to make it so. A naval base or air base in Singapore at least have the benefit of being under the air defense umbrella (Ref: various articles in Cyberpioneer and Tim Huxley [Defending the Lion City] A floating base in the South China Sea would be rather isolated in comparison.

Fighters flying CAP are hell better than SAMs on the ground. Even with "outdated" SAMS even the americans had to go in with their tomahawks, F117s and B2s before they let their F-18s soften the targets futher. Pardon my ignroance but I do not understand this statement.

Reinforced? Do you think we can be reinforced in Singapore? This is a rather contentious issue. The reinforcement I meant in my post was that for example should Changi Naval Base comes under attack, at least it would be under the protection our our air defense umbrella rather than being on its own such as the mobile base that you are mentioning. Whether we as a nation can be reinforced would probably depend on who is reinforcing us. This is my own simplistic view of things. If we are to bring in our assets overseas during hostility in our own transports IE RSAF C130 or Singapore chartered aircraft/RSN LST or Singapore flagged merchant ships, perharps that would be difficult but if it was an American led effort (assuming that the Americans are really such great pals Twisted Evil ) it would be different. A history of the American reinforcement of Israel during the Yom Kippur War is illuminating in such aspects.

Such are my humble opinions, please do not get too pissed off with me....please please please Neutral

epImetheus SG

i mean the Straits of Malaysia(the body of water between Malaysia & Indonesia) & the Straits of Singapore(the body of water between Singapore & Indonesia) which ships have to pass through B4 getting into the harbour.

« Previous Page Next Page »