Formidable class frigates
-
And just in case anyone has doubts, READ: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Israel_Probes_Naval_Missile_Defense_Failure_999.html
-
At least 2 reports that stated our FFGs are equipped with Aster30
1) Defence Technology Int'l
" Singapore has a special SAAM configuration on its new frigates, combining Thales Herakles radar with the Slyver A50 launchers and a mix of Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles."
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0108/index.php
Goto pg 38.
2)Jane's Navy International
Formidable-class frigates are also thought to be fitted for Aster 30, making the RSN the first Southeast Asian navy with an area air defence capability.................
However, materials seen by Jane's suggest that Project Raven - the internal MBDA codename given to the Singaporean programme - includes the capability to fire the longer-range Aster 30 missile, indicating that at least some of the SYVLER modules are in fact the deeper A50 variant. This would make the RSN the first Southeast Asian navy to acquire a true area air-defence capability...............
-
Originally posted by gary1910:
At least 2 reports that stated our FFGs are equipped with Aster30
1) Defence Technology Int'l
" Singapore has a special SAAM configuration on its new frigates, combining Thales Herakles radar with the Slyver A50 launchers and a mix of Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles."
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0108/index.php
Goto pg 38.
2)Jane's Navy International
FFS.Not FFG.
There's a difference, do take note.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
FFS.Not FFG.
There's a difference, do take note.
FFS?
Is that a standard Naval vessel designations???
Only thing I know abt that abbreviation is that it is use internet as " For fxxk's sake"!!!!
-
Originally posted by gary1910:
FFS?
Is that a standard Naval vessel designations???
Only thing I know abt that abbreviation is that it is use internet as " For fxxk's sake"!!!!
Scout frigate. (FFS)
Guided-missile frigate. (FFG)
I was surprised to learn this as well.
-
and may I ask where did you learn that FFS = Frigate, Scout ... ??
In any case, since frigates usually act as the scout/picket for a fleet - Scout Frigate is kinda of LPPL ... ??How about I throw another guess into the mix ... FFS = Frigate, Strike
-
Let me try, FFS = Frigate, Stealth
-
Note that our Frigates are not strictly stealth ships ala. Sea Shadow... more like low-observable.
Aka, while they have a displacement of 3,400 tons, they appear on radar like a 1,500 ton ship and can only be detected a closer then other ships of similar displacement. Could aid in having the enemy underestimate or mistake it for just another civvie ship (blend in with other littorial ships).
But it can quite clearly be detected still.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Note that our Frigates are not strictly stealth ships ala. Sea Shadow... more like low-observable.
Aka, while they have a displacement of 3,400 tons, they appear on radar like a 1,500 ton ship and can only be detected a closer then other ships of similar displacement. Could aid in having the enemy underestimate or mistake it for just another civvie ship (blend in with other littorial ships).
But it can quite clearly be detected still.
which navy ship is really Stealth?tell me?
SG frigate ''appear no larger than a fishing boat on enemy radar.''
or the most a 500 tons fishing boats.
http://www.dso.org.sg/home/newsevents/newsevents_showpage.aspx?id=17
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/taiwan/kang-ding.htm
A captain of a la fayette class said the frigate appears one tenth
of its original size in radar.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
which navy ship is really Stealth?tell me?
SG frigate ''appear no larger than a fishing boat on enemy radar.''
or the most a 500 tons fishing boats.
http://www.dso.org.sg/home/newsevents/newsevents_showpage.aspx?id=17
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/taiwan/kang-ding.htm
A captain of a la fayette class said the frigate appears one tenth
of its original size in radar.
Harlow.....read up please.
-
Originally posted by kotay:
and may I ask where did you learn that FFS = Frigate, Scout ... ??
In any case, since frigates usually act as the scout/picket for a fleet - Scout Frigate is kinda of LPPL ... ??How about I throw another guess into the mix ... FFS = Frigate, Strike
Yah lor yah lor....
LPPL.
-
Really, I'm only aware of FF or FFG, but not FFS. I guess I'll ask a friend whose serving on board one of those ships.
I hope I don't invite some flames for saying this. But to reduce a ship's radar signature by a tenth is a pretty big deal already. Most radars have a limited range it can see other ships, usually limited by the horizon. If the Formidables appear as a fishing boat at a certain distance, it might not appear at all if it was further away.
Most signals attenuate with distance. I guess what i'm suggesting is, the further away the Formidable is from the radar, the smaller it looks due to lower signal to noise ratio. Depending on how much clutter the radar is set to remove, the Formidable may return a small enough signature to be considered as "Clutter" on some systems. A maritime patrol aircraft with a larger scan area, may not pick up the Formidables at longer ranges.
Total stealth is still some distance away. But current levels available on the Formidable, already provides it a certain level of advantage in the detection game.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Really, I'm only aware of FF or FFG, but not FFS. I guess I'll ask a friend whose serving on board one of those ships.
I hope I don't invite some flames for saying this. But to reduce a ship's radar signature by a tenth is a pretty big deal already. Most radars have a limited range it can see other ships, usually limited by the horizon. If the Formidables appear as a fishing boat at a certain distance, it might not appear at all if it was further away.
Most signals attenuate with distance. I guess what i'm suggesting is, the further away the Formidable is from the radar, the smaller it looks due to lower signal to noise ratio. Depending on how much clutter the radar is set to remove, the Formidable may return a small enough signature to be considered as "Clutter" on some systems. A maritime patrol aircraft with a larger scan area, may not pick up the Formidables at longer ranges.
Total stealth is still some distance away. But current levels available on the Formidable, already provides it a certain level of advantage in the detection game.
No need, I'm a living example.
It's FFS, no mistaking. It's just nobody has an inkling what S is for.
-
I believe the concept of stealth for jets differs from ships. F117 and B2 are called stealth bombers and they are supposedly invisible on radar. In fact a Discovery Channel documentary once claimed that stealth bombers on training missions had this "thingie" attached to make them traceable by radar so the control tower knows where they are. For ships however, I don't think stealth means invisible. In fact, I recall RSN has mentioned before that the Formidable class frigate would appear like a small ship on radar. Whole idea is for the enemy to think its just a sampan or small patrol ship when in reality its an arse-kicking Frigate. I don't think RSN at anytime said that their Frigates were invisible to radar.
-
During the navy open house last year, CO of one the frigates told us by fooling the enemy into thinking the frigate is just a small fishing vessel makes the frigate "invisible"
ex-sea soldier from CNB... haha :)
-
Stealth for ships means being smaller then it really is. Why is that so? Well for one, when the USN first tested out the concept of a stealth ship,The SeaShadow Project, they realised that it worked too well. The ship did not reflect any of the radar waves back. That however meant a problem because the ship was showing up as a blackhole on the radar return. Why you may ask? Well due to the nature of the sea, the radar waves actually reflect of the surface of the water and waves which in certain conditions could be up to 8m-12m high.All of which produces a pretty significant radar return.
-
Originally posted by |-|05|:
Stealth for ships means being smaller then it really is.
Why is that so? Well for one, when the USN first tested out the concept of a stealth ship,The SeaShadow Project, they realised that it worked too well.
The ship did not reflect any of the radar waves back.
That however meant a problem because the ship was showing up as a blackhole on the radar return.Why you may ask?
Well due to the nature of the sea, the radar waves actually reflect of the surface of the water and waves which in certain conditions could be up to 8m-12m high.All of which produces a pretty significant radar return.
8-12 is a bit high....Wonder what it would feel like.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
which navy ship is really Stealth?tell me?
SG frigate ''appear no larger than a fishing boat on enemy radar.''
or the most a 500 tons fishing boats.
http://www.dso.org.sg/home/newsevents/newsevents_showpage.aspx?id=17
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/taiwan/kang-ding.htm
A captain of a la fayette class said the frigate appears one tenth
of its original size in radar.
500 tons? Not unless you believe the obviously Taiwan slanted written article on global security.
Another imaginary figure it seems...
Here's from a more realistic source
At the time of their commissioning, the units of the La Fayette class were the state of the art in stealth for warships. The shape of the hull and the superstructures is devised for the optimal reduction of the radar signature, which has been reduced by 60%: a 3000-tonne La Fayette unit has the typical radar signature of a 1200 tonne ship.
BTW, even if it is 500 tons, it'll still be as visible to enemy radars as our 500 ton Fearless Class PVs.
And of course, to have stealth means that you have to becoming totally passive, turning off your radars and anything that generates EM radiation, which also means reducing your own combat-effectiveness to passive listening.
This is not to say the low-observability features of the Formidable has no uses, but in pratice it's not as wonderous as it's cranked out to be, you'll have to sacrifice a lot of things to get the advantages of staying hidden longer.
-
which navy ship is really Stealth?tell me?
Another case of you not doing your homework.
For a truly stealthy navy ship:
And of course, for true naval stealth that is in common useage:
A prime example of extreme stealth would be the ability to penetrate the USN's ASW dragnet.
-
Our "stealth" is nothing special. It's more of pseudo-stealth actually, which is simply a first-generation redesigning of traditional ship shapes to make them more sensible in terms of RCS. But tactically it is better classified as low-observable then true stealth- as in the utility of stealth is a feature, and not the main defining feature that will affect the tactics of how you'll use the ship ie. true, STEALTH.
The effort to manage naval signature has long been in progress.
Reduction of radar cross section, visibility and noise is not unique to stealth ships, with visual masking employed for over two centuries and RCS reduction tracing back to American and Soviet ships of the Cold War. One common feature is the inward-sloping tumblehome hull design that significantly reduces the radar cross-section.
Trying to use the Formidable to sneak up on an enemy fleet by virtue of it's "stealth" will invite a barrage of ASMs.
The Formidible "stealth" is nothing new, check out the ships of other nations which also use such an idea:
Dutch Zeven Provinciën class destroyer,
Norwegian Skjold class patrol boat,
Indian Shivalik class frigate,
Finnish Hamina class missile boats
Now lionnoisy, if you really want stealth you don't reduce a 3,200 ton Frigate to a 1,200 ton vessel, you reduce a 14,564 ton DESTROYER to a fishing boat and make it as quiet as an 688I submarine:
The Zumwalt-class destroyer (also known either as the DD(X) or DDG-1000) is a planned class of United States Navy destroyers, designed as multi-mission ship with a focus on land attack. The class, originally called the DD(X), is a scaled-back project that emerged after funding cuts to the larger DD-21 vessel program.
The lead ship is named Zumwalt for Admiral Elmo Zumwalt; following U.S. Navy tradition, it and its sister ships will be known as Zumwalt-class ships.
Stealth
Despite being 40% larger than an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer the radar signature is more akin to a fishing boat and sound levels are compared to the Los Angeles-class submarine. The tumblehome hull reduces radar return and the inclusion of composite materials reducing it still further. Water sleeting along the sides, along with passive cool air induction in the mack reduces thermal emissions.[5]
what can we say?
-
Not fair to consider the Sea Shadow leh... its not an active ship in combat, but rather a research prototype.
A totally stealth ship thats invisible to radar, is a submarine thats submerged.
So they do exist.As for how the Formidable's stealthy feature works to its advantage, its as I have discussed earlier. At a good distance, its RCS is that of a fishing boat, and a further distance, might be missed out as clutter.
I think its pretty hard for us to guesstimate whether how our "Stealth" will be utilized in combat. Only thing certain is that, it still works to our favor.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Not fair to consider the Sea Shadow leh... its not an active ship in combat, but rather a research prototype.
A totally stealth ship thats invisible to radar, is a submarine thats submerged.
So they do exist.As for how the Formidable's stealthy feature works to its advantage, its as I have discussed earlier. At a good distance, its RCS is that of a fishing boat, and a further distance, might be missed out as clutter.
I think its pretty hard for us to guesstimate whether how our "Stealth" will be utilized in combat. Only thing certain is that, it still works to our favor.
Yes correct, what I am pointing out is there's no need to go all lionnoisy over the "stealth" of our frigates, and they certainly ain't no Zumwalt... now that'll be something to boast about. -
the holy truth... we all knew close to zero how much stealth the RSN FFS have.... its an undeniable fact.
we can quote from other sites... about lafayette or similar ships, but the fact remains. we knew an absolute zero about the RSN FFS RCS.
furthermore... the weight of a ship does not determine the ships RCS... if i am correct. plus to the fact that our FFS isnt an exact copy of the lafayette, being smaller with even lower profiles and a close attention to details...one would surmise that the stealth features on our FFS should be superior to that of the lafayette...
its hard to imagine that a ship built in the 2000s could not come with a better "stealth" feature compare to one that was built decades earlier... its sad to see technology stagnant.
but as stealth technology improves... so will radar technology...its a cycle thingy...
ultimately... it boils down to who have the money... to keep raising the stake in this neverending competition since the days man invented the spear and the shield.
-
To reduce RCS is definitely a welcome for any combat vessels, but according to radar equation, the RCS has to be greatly reduced in order to achieve any significant detect range reduction:
σ = radar cross section, or RCS, of the target
R = distance from the target to the receiver
To speak with some data, that is, if the detect range need to be reduced by half ( 1/2th) by means of RCS reduction solely, then the RCS has to be reduced to 1/256th of the original! A reduction of RCS to 1/10th of the original will only reduce the detection range of some 13% roughly. Usually a modern fighter can detect a DDG size target up to 300-400kms, reduction of 13% of such a range is really not a big deal. Your AshCM nowadays is still usually up to 200kms.
On the other hand, RCS of a certain target is always NOT a constant! You paint it with S-band radar commonly found in AWACS and you paint it with X-band FCR in a fighter’s c-ockpit will result in totally different RCS of the target. Furthermore, the geometric features in different part of the vessel will result in different RCS as well, which means, if the radar sees the vessel in front at a low angel as a extremely bad case, it will find the vessel a “fishing boat” which may be just 1/10th of the thousands ton vessel, but how about seeing it from the side a thigh altitude? It may no longer be as “that small” any more.
Modern Naval combat vessels are equipped with state of art EW sensors. In a combat situation, hardly you can image a modern FFG not on its powerful search radar or in some case, highly identical fire control radar. Those radiations can be picked up far far away by passive sensors of the enemy fighter jets. How many "fishing boat" can shoot up thousand kws of radiation into sky? these are broadcasting your location as well. So what Stealth are people talking about FFS?
Again, reduce RCS is definitely a good thing, but nobody will live on that because today’s modern radar and sensor technology is so well developed.
-
Originally posted by tripwire:
the holy truth... we all knew close to zero how much stealth the RSN FFS have.... its an undeniable fact.
we can quote from other sites... about lafayette or similar ships, but the fact remains. we knew an absolute zero about the RSN FFS RCS.
furthermore... the weight of a ship does not determine the ships RCS... if i am correct. plus to the fact that our FFS isnt an exact copy of the lafayette, being smaller with even lower profiles and a close attention to details...one would surmise that the stealth features on our FFS should be superior to that of the lafayette...
its hard to imagine that a ship built in the 2000s could not come with a better "stealth" feature compare to one that was built decades earlier... its sad to see technology stagnant.
but as stealth technology improves... so will radar technology...its a cycle thingy...
ultimately... it boils down to who have the money... to keep raising the stake in this neverending competition since the days man invented the spear and the shield.
There is such a thing called common sense and normal physics.Barring any kind of top secret technology that is light years ahead of our current understanding of stealth, there is no way our Formidable will have vastly improved strealth over the Lafayette barring major changes in it's hull geometry and what have you not. It's just simple physics, and at the end of the day seems to me like wishful thinking.
It's like assuming that our F-15SG will have an vastly improved RCS over the F-15Cs that the USAF uses.
Ultimately the fact remains that despite the "stealth" label thrown around in the media these days, the media remains undecerning about being clear on what is "signature-managed" and what is truly stealth. Our FFS falls better under being called "signature-managed", as in it's "stealth" is more of something to help it reduce its vulnerability then actually be used in an offensive manner.