Is having a RSN Destroyer feasible?
-
I wonder if adding 1 or 2 destroyers to RSN fleet feasible, considering in a very simple term tat it can help increase singapore naval "projection" as well as making the singapore navy a "true" fleet instead of being constrained to shore defence?
-
destroy what??
-
Navy destroyer?
-
It depends on the region i guess.. monkey see monkey do....
-
If I remember correctly... our missile corvettes already have anti-submarine capability, right?
In that case, we don't need destroyers for anti-sub warfare. -
i mean, what the heck are the destroyers going to go destroy?
-
Destroyers are mainly used for anti-submarine warfare.Originally posted by the Bear:i mean, what the heck are the destroyers going to go destroy? -
Destroyer are use for ASW and AA roles, and tat's why we here to discuss the feasibility of such vessels here in RSNOriginally posted by the Bear:i mean, what the heck are the destroyers going to go destroy? -
I guess its because of the look-I-have-thisthisthat-so-don't-dare-do-anything-funny-type-of-thing kind of things. So to deter future conflicts or enemies from doing anything funny.
-
Just curious: do the Indonesian and Malaysian navies operate destroyers?
-
Actually, the distinction between frigates and destroyers is very blurred nowadays as both type of vessels have overlapping roles(AAW, ASW), the only difference being in displacement(actually some larger frigates have about the same displacement as a normal destroyer).Put it this way,our formidable class frigates can actually be considered as a"mini destroyer" itself.Therefore i don't see having destroyer as very feasible, both in terms of manpower and operational costs.
Just my two cents -
so, how much money do we throw away to get these destroyers?
the money which can be used hell of a lot better with other equipment and better training... -
I think this debate came up before and one of the key points against having a destroyer would be that the RSN simply doesnt have the manpower to run a destroyer. Wiki says our Formidables requires 85 crewmen including the cew of the Seahawk. From what limited knowledge I have, destroyers need 200-300(correct this if I'm wrong). About 3 frigates crew for one destroyer. Given that NS has been shortened, can our peeps really handle a destroyer?
-
Why not we just spend that money and build something nuclear?
-
no offence but look at thailand with their aircraft carrier, its practically leaking. its just a matter of pride and stuff like that, in my opinion.we do not need a destroyer at all
-
We dont need destroyers which are really for a Blue Ocean Navy. Navy also in the midst of a steep learnin curve given all the new capabilities being added over the next few years - the frigates, submarines, LSTs
-
We dont need destroyers which are really for a Blue Ocean Navy. Navy also in the midst of a steep learnin curve given all the new capabilities being added over the next few years - the frigates, submarines, LSTs. Also, we just do not have the manpower.
-
We already have a destroyer. Just go Airborne school and ask around.
-
actually our frigate is highly automated... that is why it only needed 85 crews including flight crews...Originally posted by fallin:I think this debate came up before and one of the key points against having a destroyer would be that the RSN simply doesnt have the manpower to run a destroyer. Wiki says our Formidables requires 85 crewmen including the cew of the Seahawk. From what limited knowledge I have, destroyers need 200-300(correct this if I'm wrong). About 3 frigates crew for one destroyer. Given that NS has been shortened, can our peeps really handle a destroyer?
normal frigate usually needs alot more manpower to run.... for eg... the US oliver hazard perry class frigate needs 176men... and its only marginally bigger then our frigate.
even the french la fayette class frigate... which our formidable is based on... needs about 140 man... about twice our formidable crew complement.
if we do get destroyers... i expect alot of automation on board.
however... a destroyer isnt really much different from frigate...
except in terms of weight and length of the ship... even such differences is getting closer and closer... a british destroyer is probably very close in both aspect compare to an american frigate.
as for the size of our navy to handle bigger and more ships... i think it boils down to what the navy really want... its not as if the entire singapore only got a few thoudsand man....
in terms of tonnage.. our formidable is only second to the thai knox class frigate in this region. -
The lines between a destroyer and frigate is very blurred now. Maybe it is the "size". But tonnage is no longer a good gauge of firepower. As naval technology moved very fast... a bigger ship might just mean a bigger target.Originally posted by Texcoco II:I wonder if adding 1 or 2 destroyers to RSN fleet feasible, considering in a very simple term tat it can help increase singapore naval "projection" as well as making the singapore navy a "true" fleet instead of being constrained to shore defence?
Maybe the question is:
After the Formidable FFGs is commisioned, what is the next phase in the evolution of our navy?
Is it to develop the sub-surface fleet?
Develop the air-wing and integrate them more closely with our ships?
Or get bigger ships? -
Nothing wrong for the RSN to having field a Destroyer.. if they wants to..
However given the seas in which we operate, Malacca straits and a bit of south china sea... will simply provide a bigger target for enemies, for god sake, I could see batam from the Singapore coast.
In fact, I find that the Formable Class frigate is abit too large for the kind of seas we operate in. Of course, the formable is Astor15 for air defense is great.
I believe that having a slightly smaller covettes (Frigates really) of 80-90m, with air defense VLS, is best. -
Actually our Formidables are actually mini destroyers. They are multi-purpose platforms that can be used for AA , ASW and ASuW. The only difference is that they are smaller and required less crew due to both ship size and high automation.
The waters which our navy operates in, is considered as littoral waters. Considering the massive amount of civilian shipping and the numerous islands in our area, having a smaller vessel is actually an advantage. Large vessels are relatively harder to steer as compared to smaller ones.
Further more the nearest ocean to Singapore is the Indian ocean which is already the playground of the Indian,Chinese,Pakistani and US navies. The situation is complicated enough i guess they don't really want another player there.
-
Personally,I'm in favour of developing the submarine fleet. Really hope they get some new ones instead of 2nd-hand Swedish. After all, some believe that the age of the aircraft carrier is giving way to the age of the submarine.Originally posted by spencer99:The lines between a destroyer and frigate is very blurred now. Maybe it is the "size". But tonnage is no longer a good gauge of firepower. As naval technology moved very fast... a bigger ship might just mean a bigger target.
Maybe the question is:
After the Formidable FFGs is commisioned, what is the next phase in the evolution of our navy?
Is it to develop the sub-surface fleet?
Develop the air-wing and integrate them more closely with our ships?
Or get bigger ships? -
What added capabilities will a destroyer have over the Formidable-class frigates?
I'd rather RSN get an amphibious support ship like the JMSDF Ohsumi-class. Can also function as a helo-carrier.
-
a destoyers only advantage over frigate is its ability to carry bigger weapons due to its size....Originally posted by Singer high:What added capabilities will a destroyer have over the Formidable-class frigates?
I'd rather RSN get an amphibious support ship like the JMSDF Ohsumi-class. Can also function as a helo-carrier.
one possibilities is probably for TMD, if we can get our hands on those standard 3 SAM, which the americans are apparently placing great confidence in its ability to interecept ballistic missile.
recently... the defence minister has been quoted to have his sight set on providing singapore a Missile defence capability when he was talking about our air defence...
afew ships moving around with afew hundred standard 3 missile could prove useful... especially since we can forward deploy the vessel for long period and at long distance from singapore (giving us an advance intercept option) along the potential flight path of hostile missile path.
i for one... would hate to be too dependent on a single defence line from ground base SAMs... or ABMs... given our close proximity to not so friendly neighbours.