New ST frigate: A look in the future for RSN?
-
i recently saw this post on the defencetalk.com forum, in which a forummer posted some close up shots of a new ST designed frigate. I was wondering what are the chances RSN might want to adopt this design. The ship is definitely larger than the Formidables and it seems to have spaces for 6x8 VLS system. Thus some land attack cruise missile can be placed on them. It can also serve as a mobile long range air defence system if we get something beyond Aster15. From the picture, the radar dun see to be like the Herakles and I think RSN ought to get better radar as our neighbours are improving in terms of air defence. SMART-L/APAR combination, Sampson or EMPAR? Could the future RSN ship be mounted with them?
Another thing is that in the pics there seem to be this diamond shape thing on near the missile position, wad could they be? Chaff, or hidden CIWS?
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5800 -
Really a reflection of how much our defense industry has grown over the years. That technology exchange with France must have given us a real boost.
-
Hello! it is just a model lah!Originally posted by fallin:Really a reflection of how much our defense industry has grown over the years. That technology exchange with France must have given us a real boost. -
Hoho
E sky-shield 35 sys -
I dont think RSN can absorb more hardware in the near term. You have the new formidable class plus the new subs plus new anti sub helis to integrate.
-
model good enough liao lah. Everybody has to start somewhere. From designing rifles to ships very big jump leh.Originally posted by spencer99:Hello! it is just a model lah! -
Actually considering that it took only 4 years from contract to the first frigate and 2 more from the 1st frigate to the last to be sailed, it's pretty obvious that we can ramp up the construction of ultra-modern naval vessals pretty easily.
Our current missle corvettes have actually crossed the 15 year mark in terms of service. There's only that much space in a 15 yr old hull for expansion and modification of new weaponry/electronic systems. Perhaps when the corvettes hits 20 years (in 3-4 years time) our larger stealth corvettes are most hopefully entering service. -
Our MGBs are in service since the 1970s. That is about 30 years of service!Originally posted by CM06:Actually considering that it took only 4 years from contract to the first frigate and 2 more from the 1st frigate to the last to be sailed, it's pretty obvious that we can ramp up the construction of ultra-modern naval vessals pretty easily.
Our current missle corvettes have actually crossed the 15 year mark in terms of service. There's only that much space in a 15 yr old hull for expansion and modification of new weaponry/electronic systems. Perhaps when the corvettes hits 20 years (in 3-4 years time) our larger stealth corvettes are most hopefully entering service.
in comparision, the MCVs are still "young" and will probably not be replaced any time soon...... i see them in service for at least another 10 years or so....
Having said that, we will probably buy additional stealth OPVs so serve alongside the Frigates and MCVs...
The APVs will probably be relagated to coastal duties....together with the PVs.
But u r right about the "ramp" of the 2nd to 6th frigate....though, ST do built things pretty fast...
I don't think we will see any more RSN expansion, beyond the 2x SSKs and the 6x ASW Helos... for the next 5-8 years....
the RSN had already grown tremendously.... just a decade a go, it is a force with 6x MCVs, 6x MGBs, 12x PVs, 4x MCMV and some extremely old ex-USN LSTs...
now we have stealth frigates, SSKs, ASW helis, new LST/LPH! that is a tremednous growth... -
True, but dont forget technology wise, things will get outdated quicker too. While our MCVs are capable or another 10 years of service, i rather our front line personnel not be on a 30 year old warship in times of trouble!
Like i said in 3-5 years you might hear plans for new MCVs replacement. Personally i do hope that they are already in place and replacing by then. While our MCVs are pretty good but even the newest weapon in their weaponry (barak) is already 10 years old (since implementation) this year.
Maybe when the new ships come, when i do not know, the MCVs will slowly be relegated to second tier defence roles. After all, i dont expect us to have 10 brand news MCVs due to high cost, probably with the increase capabilities, we will have fewer of the new ships. -
Actually, with "technology" it make more sense to keep ships longer... since even though the "platform" is "old", it can still be continuously upgraded.Originally posted by CM06:True, but dont forget technology wise, things will get outdated quicker too. While our MCVs are capable or another 10 years of service, i rather our front line personnel not be on a 30 year old warship in times of trouble!
Like i said in 3-5 years you might hear plans for new MCVs replacement. Personally i do hope that they are already in place and replacing by then. While our MCVs are pretty good but even the newest weapon in their weaponry (barak) is already 10 years old (since implementation) this year.
Maybe when the new ships come, when i do not know, the MCVs will slowly be relegated to second tier defence roles. After all, i dont expect us to have 10 brand news MCVs due to high cost, probably with the increase capabilities, we will have fewer of the new ships.
The MCVs being the "oldest" platform after the MGBs are "gone" will probably be the next in line to be replaced. but i suspect there will be an "increase" in the "Orbat" rather then a replacement of the MCVs. probably another "squadron" of 6 vessels, probably the new ST OPVs.... -
I can see some influences from the Swedish Visby boats and some influence from the America DDX destroyers, and obviously some French.
We ought to replace our gunboats and corvettes, and those minesweeper anti submarine boats. Especially when you consider that boat which lost nearly a quarter of its hull in that accident some time back. Forgot the class. -
??? Minesweeper anti submarine boats?? Which ship are you talking about?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:I can see some influences from the Swedish Visby boats and some influence from the America DDX destroyers, and obviously some French.
We ought to replace our gunboats and corvettes, and those minesweeper anti submarine boats. Especially when you consider that boat which lost nearly a quarter of its hull in that accident some time back. Forgot the class. -
I think the future plan for RSN in general is to have larger vessels both for transportation and for naval warfare. I think we should get an LPD with at least 4 helo platforms on them. The existing Endurance can only carry 350 men and 18 tanks thus we need a platform that can carry at least a battalion worth of ppls. Larger insertion platforms are also needed as the existing FCEP and FCU can't carry ppls to shores that are cluttered with debris, eg. Tsunami aid in Indon. Small vessels also rroll like mad even in the calmest of water.
As for combat fleet I think we should transfer th smaller vessels to PCG thus allowing them to have a brown water capabilities, and allowing us to expand our forces without straining manpower.
I believe any future corvette must have at least 80m worth of length to ensure better sea-keeping.
We should also get new frigates at least 130m in length. These vessels will act as air defense platform with 64 VLS while the rest are general purpose frigates. Lastly, we should convert one or two of our Endurance to become a missile carrier, in which land attack cruise missiles will be placed on them. This will increase our dimensions of attacking capabilities while at the same time create a mobile air defense screen. -
To Eq84,
we must bear in mind the sensitivities of our neighbour. We always get the shorter end of the bargaining stick. Building cruise missle capability, multi-mission capable LHD/LSTs will bring about alot of whining from others. Sad no one gave a hoot about those 18 MLRS platforms. Now those are big e-peen to wave about anyday. -
I hope we get some stealth missile corvettes to complement our Formidable class frigates.
But hey, u'll never realise what the future of RSN will be. Who knows, we might be flying Gundams or valkryies off our LSTs soon. =D -
Originally posted by spencer99:??? Minesweeper anti submarine boats?? Which ship are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Singapore_Navy
Scroll down. Fearless class was the class of anti-sub boats and there's a minesweeper boats. The RSS Courageous was the ship that had 1/4 of the hull sheared off in a collision off Pedra Blanca. -
Oh! you are talking about TWO DIFFERENT vessels....Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Singapore_Navy
Scroll down. Fearless class was the class of anti-sub boats and there's a minesweeper boats. The RSS Courageous was the ship that had 1/4 of the hull sheared off in a collision off Pedra Blanca.
btw, why do you say they are worthless?
Are you saying there is no role for a MCMV in RSN? Or it should be replaced by another vessel type? -
I didn't exactly say they were worthless but MCMVs are bloody old and have been out at sea for over decade. They probably weren't designed for endurance however but I wonder if the RSN ever intended for them to deal with mines in the Sumatra strait.Originally posted by spencer99:Oh! you are talking about TWO DIFFERENT vessels....
btw, why do you say they are worthless?
Are you saying there is no role for a MCMV in RSN? Or it should be replaced by another vessel type?
For the anti-submarine vessels, they are pretty small and secondly obviously lack endurance. Now if we intended them for escorts, they are darn slow escorts and probably have a lower cruise speed than our frigates. Judging from the fact they are characterised as patrol vessels, their capabilities are limited. I reckon that if we grab boats like the Visby, not only will they be stealthy, their larger size gives them far greater flexibility now than before. -
The MCMVs are designed to keep RSN's naval bases clear of mines so that our naval ships can transit safely...Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:I didn't exactly say they were worthless but MCMVs are bloody old and have been out at sea for over decade. They probably weren't designed for endurance however but I wonder if the RSN ever intended for them to deal with mines in the Sumatra strait.
For the anti-submarine vessels, they are pretty small and secondly obviously lack endurance. Now if we intended them for escorts, they are darn slow escorts and probably have a lower cruise speed than our frigates. Judging from the fact they are characterised as patrol vessels, their capabilities are limited. I reckon that if we grab boats like the Visby, not only will they be stealthy, their larger size gives them far greater flexibility now than before.
Also to some extent to keep Singapore waters clear of mines for merchant ships.
Any country or group that try to "mine" the Straits of Malacca (is that what you are referring to "Sumatra strait") will get a harsh response.
Due to the importance of these waters to international shipping you can bet that major powers like the US, Japan, China and Australia will expend resources to keep these waters clear, because their interest are at stake...
So effectively, the Bedok class vessels are destined to keep our naval bases clear. and I think they should be more then adequate for the task. If I am not wrong, the MCMVs are newer then then the missile corvettes... not sure whether there are "long endurance" minesweeper in service anywhere!
Seriously, how to you define "old"?? 5 years or 10 years after commisioning...
As for the PVs and APVs, do you know that they are longer then the MCVs!
Are you saying we don't need plain vanilla patrol vessels in the fleet? Just to patrol around coastal waters, stand off Pedra Branca and Jurong Island to "show the flag'. No matter how "blue water" RSN become with the frigates and new LSTs, we still need workhores to patrol our coastal waters.
the PVs and APVs don't even have Harpoon missile, they are probably not meant to fight naval engagement, their likely "targets" are maybe terrorist boats or similar gun-armed combatants... -
The Bedok class vessels are then adequate for the mission task.Originally posted by spencer99:The MCMVs are designed to keep RSN's naval bases clear of mines so that our naval ships can transit safely...
Also to some extent to keep Singapore waters clear of mines for merchant ships.
Any country or group that try to "mine" the Straits of Malacca (is that what you are referring to "Sumatra strait") will get a harsh response.
Due to the importance of these waters to international shipping you can bet that major powers like the US, Japan, China and Australia will expend resources to keep these waters clear, because their interest are at stake...
So effectively, the Bedok class vessels are destined to keep our naval bases clear. and I think they should be more then adequate for the task. If I am not wrong, the MCMVs are newer then then the missile corvettes... not sure whether there are "long endurance" minesweeper in service anywhere!
Seriously, how to you define "old"?? 5 years or 10 years after commisioning...
As for the PVs and APVs, do you know that they are longer then the MCVs!
Are you saying we don't need plain vanilla patrol vessels in the fleet? Just to patrol around coastal waters, stand off Pedra Branca and Jurong Island to "show the flag'. No matter how "blue water" RSN become with the frigates and new LSTs, we still need workhores to patrol our coastal waters.
the PVs and APVs don't even have Harpoon missile, they are probably not meant to fight naval engagement, their likely "targets" are maybe terrorist boats or similar gun-armed combatants...
As for the patrol boats, they may be longer, but they mass far less by 100 tonnes. They obviously can't be escorts since they don't have the speed to keep up with the MCVs for starters. I won't count on them to protect the fleet from submarine attack which is probably why we acquired submarines anyhow. I'm of the opinion also that ships can't be jack of all trades which is why a CVBG has dedicated anti-submarine frigates and destroyers as the offensive arm and defensive arm.
Our fleet, even with the new frigates, is still very much a coastal fleet with a largely defensive posture. Most likely they are tasked to handle naval blockades and that's as far as I think they would go, aside from possible support of amphibious landings, which in my opinion is a tricky proposition at best. -
E PV r not armed with harpoons in peace time u mean
-
r u saying they can be armed with Harpoons??Originally posted by spartan6:E PV r not armed with harpoons in peace time u mean
I am quite surprised.... i thought they are armed with guns and anti-submarine torps only...
actually why would our APVs need to protect the frigates against submarine attack? aren't the Frigates armed with ASW weapons also as well as a ASW helicopter....
they are probably meant to patrol our coastal waters to ensure that they are free of submarines....
on the PVs versus MCVs... i hope ppl can do the maths....
a large %% of displacement is taken up by the engines... the MCVs are 100 tons heavier but slightly shorter... actually they are pretty much the same size... but the PVs are at least 10 knot slower...
That means that the PVs probably have more internal space dedicated to "non-propulsion" purposes... meaning they have either more "storage" for fuel/endurance or more electronics...
either that or maybe their speed (20 knots) is vastly understated.... -
I agree with Spencer99's deduction that the PVs have much room for add-on equipment. This could be done at short notice probably before any event of hostilities.Originally posted by spencer99:a large %% of displacement is taken up by the engines... the MCVs are 100 tons heavier but slightly shorter... actually they are pretty much the same size... but the PVs are at least 10 knot slower...
That means that the PVs probably have more internal space dedicated to "non-propulsion" purposes... meaning they have either more "storage" for fuel/endurance or more electronics...
either that or maybe their speed (20 knots) is vastly understated....
Hulls 6 to 12 can probably mount 4 or 8 Harpoon SSMs at short notice if needed. However, they would probably be just launch platforms supplementing the firepower of a task force with assisted guidance from the larger corvettes or frigates needed for long-range engagements.
But just a sidenote that the MCVs are longer than the PVs, not the other way round. The exact length would be 62.4m for an MCV versus 55m for a PV, as taken from Jane's. Each MCV is thus around 100 tons heavier than a PV. -
maybe we can have small fast attack craft armed with maybe ATGMs that lurk in swamps or estuaries and ambush enemy ships and run at high speed eg 40knots? these small craft may have profiles on the radar that resemble small sampan or fishing craft and being small size and speedy, offers a smaller target to enemy gunners and definitely not worth an exocet