Stealth warships to form core of Singapore navy

wd1 SG

in ur post u seemed to say that having a different doctrine meant that their harpoon loads would be different.

i just meant that the main role of USN escorts is fleet air defense, antisubmarine and tomahawk shooting etc, not really antiship which is borne mainly by carrier planes

thus USN ships carry fewer harpoons than other navies' ships (eg our MCV) relative to their size... (aegis and MCV have same harpoon load but the size is 20 times different)

their harpoons are more for use when no planes are around or on targets of opportunity...

havent heard of USN ships ever firing their harpoons in anger.

also that the "guided munitions and standoff weapons" joeblack mentioned were indeed harpoons, not JDAMs.

foxtrout8 SG

in ur post u seemed to say that having a different doctrine meant that their harpoon loads would be different.

Did i? Read again.

i just meant that the main role of USN escorts is fleet air defense, antisubmarine and tomahawk shooting etc, not really antiship which is borne mainly by carrier planes

Yesh i know , but if u read by previous post real properly , i stated that not all naval deployment of the USN include carriers , thus how are USN combatant going to defend themselve if their deployment didnt include a carrier (base on ur arguement that the antiship role is borne by carrier planes)?

So in conclusion , i agree that aircrafts are the main anti-shipping medium to sink enemy ships but onli in a carrier fleet. To be precise , the Harpoon is still the primary Anti-ship Missile of the US Navy Ships.

thus USN ships carry fewer harpoons than other navies' ships (eg our MCV) relative to their size... (aegis and MCV have same harpoon load but the size is 20 times different)

I dun understand. A Burke class carry 8 Harpoon which is the same with our MCV. Ur arguement that USN carry fewer harpoons is wrong but then u didnt stop and say that 'aegis and MCV have same harpoon load'. Isnt that a contridiction?

their harpoons are more for use when no planes are around or on targets of opportunity...

Yah so am i right to say that the Harpoon is the main ASM of the USN ships? Note that i didnt say the main Anti-shipping medium of USN carrier fleet.

havent heard of USN ships ever firing their harpoons in anger.

Not that i know .

also that the "guided munitions and standoff weapons" joeblack mentioned were indeed harpoons, not JDAMs.

U read again. His sentence structure is susgesting that JDAMs and Popeye are stand-off guided weapons which are hard to shoot down. Base on my knowledge , JDAM is not a stand off weapon and it is relative easy to shoot down ( base on the fact that JDAM is a unpowered munition and SAMs were proven to be able to shoot down 155mm round ).

Quote from Joeblack : ''One can argue that it is far easier to down an ASM than a guided standoff munition like Popeye or JDAM.''

Laplace SG

I am a complete amateur when it comes to maritime defense and therefore have exactly no idea what fox's or gary's ideas of "true blue-water capability", "expeditionary" or "required fleet ORBAT is" (I am in awe of the two heavyweight's knowledge in these matters)

But I always believed that how capable or good a navy is not just measured in terms of big guns or exotic missiles but also by logistical support on the move. And how far a navy or armed forces for that matter can boast an expeditionary force depends on how robust the logistical support is.

Fox, gary - can anyone of you enlighten this old-fashioned and out of tuned amateur on what are the logistical capability of the RSN? I belief that by establishing the fleet's LSV ORBAT and capabilities will answer quite adequately whether the RSN has what it takes to form an expeditionary force in the near future.

foxtrout8 SG

Friend , u are no out of fashion amature. Ur opinion bear weight to our discussion here.

Im having my O's tml and i will like to share my opinion with u later on , perhaps tml. Maybe u will like to hear Gary's opinion first.

Cheers.

gary1910 SG

AFAIK RSN does not operate any support ships, but during a crisis, support boat/ships like tugboat, merchant vessels etc will be requested via Civil resource requisition exercises thru open or silent mobilisation. They will then be manned by NS men of former RSN's regulars & NSF of RSN which will be formed the 192 & 193 sqn of the RSN. They have annual ICT just to get familiar with their boat/ships.

To what extent the requisition is I really have no idea except I am sure some tugboat,some merchant vessels for replenishment.

I hope my reply could ans yr qn.

laser51088 SG

I think the point is that for the US Navy, the structure of the navy itself is centred on the carrier battlegroups. The harpoon armed ships are secondary and in many cases serve as protection for the purpose of getting the carriers to their destination to unleash THEIR firepower.

Whereas for other navies the harpoons arm ships serve as flagships themselves. US navy doctrine is different cos it centres on getting the aircraft carrier into position. If a foreign force can prove itself readily capable of sinking an aircraft carrier despite the carrier's protection, it is doubtful that the US will send its navy or even a sizable naval force at all.

Thus, employment of the harpoon is with the expectation that it will operate together with other weapons system with the purpose of killing the same target.

|-|05| SG

The harpoon is their primary ship to ship missile however it's range is medium....long range would be like the AS-4,the SS-20 and even the tomahwak.By the way the Tomahawk ship to ship is armed with a radar and GPS seeker head meaning it is the same as the harpoon when it comes to finding a target.It's usually lead there by an AWACS.

Actually the USN seldom depolys without air cover...be it airforce or navy planes.At the very least they try to keep a P-3 near it.It would be interesting to note that while they carry Harpoons they usually carry more Tomahawk SSM's into combat.Usually around 10.
Note the Tomahawk SSM is different frm the land version TLSC(or something like that)I think the only difference is the warhead.
Anyway

What he meant to say is that at most the USN ships carry 8 harpoons.Which in terms of ratio is little compared to what our ships carry and their size!I mean a Crusier or Destroyer carrying the same number as an MCV when it can easily carry alot alot more.

Yah so am i right to say that the Harpoon is the main ASM of the USN ships? Note that i didnt say the main Anti-shipping medium of USN carrier fleet.

Some sources i read say the penguin is the main anti shipping missole now....cuz it can be chopper launched though the harpoon is kept just incase.

True...oh so true....but hardly anything can stand againest a USN CBG!!Especially when it has 2 carriers or more in it!!!

wd1 SG

foxtrout8's taking Os!?

hey me too!!!

nice to noe there are fellow military enthusiasts in sg, esp at our age.

btw 05, tomahawk variants are as follows:

TASM - ship-attack version (tomahawk antiship missile)

TLAM (tomahawk land attack missile):

TLAM-C - 1000lb warhead

TLAM-D - bomblet dispersion warhead

TLAM-N - nuke warhead

YourFather SG

The ASM Tomahawk was retired a long time ago, as it was not practical to use…

Laplace SG

Fox, thank you for your reassurance.

Gary, if the RSN depends on reacquisition of civilian maritime resources during wartime or when the need arises, then do you know whether there are any civilian resources comparable to fleet LSVs?

I should think that logistical support on high seas is tricky business and requires highly trained support crews with the right tools (i.e. specialized LSVs).

Thanks.

gary1910 SG

I presume that you already know that the RSN operate four locally built Endurance class LPD,one ex-British Perseverance class LSL & two ex-USN County class LST. Details could be found on this website:
http://www.hazegray.org/

All the above could be for used for expeditory force as well as logistics support especially the older LST.They r also I think 25 FCEP,4 RPL & 10 FCU for amphibious landing.

As for the logistics support ship & boats, I was actually refering to those dedicated support ship like tugboat , merchant vessels for store & ammo, oiler & other commercially available ships which I think it is not problem at all for SG as she has one of the biggest shipping liner . And they all r as critical as the LST for any expeditory force.

As for whether there are any Civil resources that resemble that of the LSTs, I dunno as I am not from the shipping line. Maybe some of you could answer that qn......

foxtrout8 SG

presume that you already know that the RSN operate four locally built Endurance class LPD,one ex-British Perseverance class LSL & two ex-USN County class LST. Details could be found on this website:
http://www.hazegray.org/

The four Endurance LST are build to replace the 4 Ex-country Class LST which had served 2 countries since world war 2.

As for the logistics support ship & boats, I was actually refering to those dedicated support ship like tugboat , merchant vessels for store & ammo, oiler & other commercially available ships which I think it is not problem at all for SG as she has one of the biggest shipping liner .

Singapore is one country which really bang hard on total defense. I wont be surprise to know that we can convert a tanker or a large cargo ship into an aircraft carrier to support large scale helicopter operation as far as north of Malacca straits.

To lapice , Singapore do not need to rely alot on naval logistic support because our operation radius aint so big that we need such support. Even if we need one jus to support a longer patrol over our small operation radius , we can rely on our 4 LST and 4 F-50 to supply us to essiential rations and neccessities.

However in the future if Singapore will wanna be a potent expeditory force , she have to look into obtaining at least one logistic ship. I believe a logistic ship do not have to be build for the sole purpose of providing logistic like wat the USN can afford. For mi , if we wanna upgrade our logistic capability , another 2 Endurance LST will be enough.

Civil resource is a solution for providing naval logistic..but lets bear in mind , it can never be a long term solution if we wanna be an expeditory force.

|-|05| SG

Heh have u seen ships being loaded out sea??it's bloody scary....But normal container ships can do it......i think some navies reley on normal merchant men to resupply their ships.

And to the guy who mentioned the Tamohawk thx for the clarification Smile

Fairyland SG

For RSN and especially the smaller patrol crafts, even the Victory class....VERTREP Singapore style is also an option more so now with the Super Chinooks.

Granted refuelling is a challenge but I'm willing to bet that fuel bladder with diesel can be made to float in the sea. But the boats have to stop dead in the water to refuel though.

gary1910 SG

Actually RSN & any navies has exercise on ship to ship transfer at sea for training. Commercial or miltary oilers r meant for refueling of ships at high sea.

CHARGE!!!

« Previous Page