Why USN Littoral Combat Ship Freedom looks not so stealth?
-
And BTW you are still running away.
You still haven't answered on degaussing for mines, why you ask if metal hulls are okay when degaussing has been around since WW2?
Interestingly how come you are also quiet on the fact that despite being in the same weight class, the LCS is significantly faster then the our Formidable frigates? Our Formidable can only max out at 27 knots while the LCS can go up to 50, which is nearly twice as fast.
Never do your homework and think you can anyhow ask questions rite?
Please answer, or are you going to run away again?
-
If you want to convince people that the LCS is such a bad idea, then use logic and facts to do it.
So how come so far all your logic and facts have produced things like ships needing to teleport to areas of trouble at any given time, launching F-18s off "mini-cvs", crashing FANTAIL into things, carrying SAR-21 by one handle in battle like a handbag and inline skate force?
LOL
So you think the USN is going to operate LCS without any configuration at all times until times of war? I think you're not thinking at all.
Basically and I say this again, the LCS is supposed to give the USN an inexpensive, littorial ship to operate with the capacity to change its roles as and when needed to reduce on having redundant hull types or needing to build more ships to fufill a specialized role.
If you don't want to accept this or think it's an unworkable concept for the simple reason the RSN or ST does not have it and it's threatening the imaginary popularity or "superiority" of the small brown water navy of a certain island nation then it's really your loss, you are the one who needs to constantly decieve yourself and remain blind and ignorant, choosing only to see the world through the "anything SAF does is good and if other militaries perform better or have better ideas they are flawed and stupid ideas because I need to feel good about my own SAF" glasses.
Obviously all this is lost out on you who sits in one corner sucking your lollipop and repeating the same, debunked and lously points over and over again.
I don't think the USN makes good choices all the time, but quite obviously, their rate of making good choices far exceeds your own, lionnoisy.
-
For some reason lionnoisy makes a big who-ha when the Yanks take this technology further and actually implement hulls that can be configured as an when they are needed in short order. But oh wait, he's more known for having more noise then knowledge on the subject matter.
What is funnier is that he's trying to paint this as a major disadvantage of the class when by any measure it is actually its strongest point. As opposed to having to constantly operate ships of differing types or finding a shortfall in certain hull classes when a certain need arises, the USN can now configure it's flexible hulls to tailor to their needs as and when they need, allowing them force-to-task-suitability that is otherwise not possible with having multiple redundant ship types.
What is pure comedy he misses out the entire point of the concept and instead relies soley on his "what if, anyday, anytime" a single lone LCS faces a task that it is not configured for?
Might as well ask the same question of our Formidible frigates. What if one day, "anyday, anytime" our Formidibles find themselves in a minefield and realize that they are not an anti-mining ship?
What rubbish.
Oh I am sure the largest navy in the world with the biggest budget and most powerful sensor network would somehow send out lone littorial ships with absolutely no support whatsoever to get surprised by the enemy.
The greater rubbish is that he tries to say that 24 hours to change the ship's role is too much due to how "quickly" war can break out. Not only does he not explain how on earth this war is breaking out, he simply assumes as he does before, that mysterous stealth ships and planes will suddenly appear out of nowhere and show the "unsuitability" of whatever system he happens to fix his illogical gaze upon.
Seriously... which power in the world is going to try to "surprise" the USN? And which navy goes to war within 24 hours? To sail the fleet to any location takes months of prep in harbour as well as actual sailing to location. If the LCS is going to war, the USN would have had plenty of time to prepare it for the intended task.
Might as well say that all citizens in Singapore need to have a SAR-21 by their side at all times because "anyday, anytime" war can break out and going to our camps and drawing our weapons will take too much time.
Seriously, this guy is totally pwned in here.
-
-
I must say this has been one of the heavier lionnoisy pwnings...
I'll be pretty amused if he tries yet again to reuse his old arguments...
-
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
Actually it's camouflage, the sampan is actually a Lion Class battleship under cloaking and holographic projection.
-
lololololololololol
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Actually it's camouflage, the sampan is actually a Lion Class battleship under cloaking and holographic projection.
he's must be a battleship admiral who can't see that his ideas, logic and facts are all wrong
-
Well you should check out his M4 thread, he's going to great lengths to argue that no computerized fire control system exists for the FN2000 nor does it have the capacity to fire air bursting munitions when there is an abundant amount of literature out there on the web that testifies to that ability.
Additionally, the abilty of the FN2000 to use a FCS has long been established as one of it's modular variants when the rifle first came out in 2001.
His main excuse "the FN official webpage dun have, ABM is difficult technology must learn to walk before crawl", and that all the sources out on the web must be faked, hoaxed or mistakened.
LOL
Now with pictures posted of the FN2000 with it's fire control computer, especially with details on how it works I wonder what he's going to say next.
I think short of exploding an airburst 40mm from an FN2000 over his head, he'll probably try to find some other way to argue white to black.
-
-
-
Originally posted by fatone:
idefinitely more entertaining than Lionnoisy.
keep up the good work.
-
Originally posted by fatone:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GOOD ONE FATONE!
-
A layman comparsion of LCS and Formidable-class Frigate main deck tidiness
The five huge and permanent bitts will not help to increase the stealth of LCS!!
http://phrontistery.info/nautical.html
bitts-- posts mounted on a ship for fastening ropes.
Pl compare the stealth outlook of a cheap SG frigate and a expensive
US LCS!!How do u feel?well,u can say this is not the most stealth format
of LCS.They have not shown us the best form yet.I hope so.
But i can pretty sure the 5 huge and permanent bitts of LCS will
increase RCS,comapre with SG frigate!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/2713741957/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/tags/littoralcombatship/
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/344436
above--the Republic of Singapore Navy’s (RSN) Formidable-class Frigate Squadron is fully operational.u cant see bitts and other odds and even on deck.
I am not saying SG technology is most advanced.
But i can say SG just do the basic right first,clearing the deck
as much as possible before u talk about stealth technology.
In most of the time,just do the basic things first.
This will alreday help u a lot.
There is little use when u spend billions in stealth technology BUT u leave
so many stuff exposed in your main deck!!
I am sure a clean main deck will reflect less radar wave than a messy main deck.
@@@@@@@@@@@
Why do Yankee need so many stuff on main deck when LCS is sailing?
-
Your title says it all: A layman comparison of LCS and Formidable Class...
You're worse than a layman, you're an idiot. I don't think you know a single thing about stealth.
The USA is the foremost expert on stealth. It doesn't need an dumbass like you telling them what to do.
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
our title says it all: A layman comparison of LCS and Formidable Class...
You're worse than a layman, you're an idiot. I don't think you know a single thing about stealth.
The USA is the foremost expert on stealth. It doesn't need an dumbass like you telling them what to do.
US is not a monopoly of stealth technology.It depends on one's
eagerness to improve.Look at SG ship try to be stealth--
u can see no window and very 'clean' to reduce RCS!!
Victory-class missile corvettes--built 1990/91
Fearless class Patrol Boat--built 1996--1998
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=139318
zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/(RSN in Chinese)
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/navy/assets/vessels.html
below--Victory-class missile corvettes
Weapons
HARPOON Missiles
76 mm OTO MELARA SRGM
BARAK Surface to Air Missile
WHITEHEAD Torpedoes
above--RSN Fearless class patrol vessel
Weapons
76 mm OTO MELARA SRGM##
MISTRAL Surface to Air Missile
WHITEHEAD Torpedoes---for first batch of 6 boats only.##Super Rapid Gun Mount
-
Very clean??!!
I might agree with your statement that Formidable indeed made more effort than the LCS as far as RCS is concerned and hence disagree with Asian Aussie.
But I must say exposing your foxcle leaves a fair bit of space for more equipment, and frankly speaking, the yanks probably did not put stealth as a foremost property for this design, preferring performance and volume over stealth.
Your next post simply ruined it all.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Very clean??!!
I might agree with your statement that Formidable indeed made more effort than the LCS as far as RCS is concerned and hence disagree with Asian Aussie.
But I must say exposing your foxcle leaves a fair bit of space for more equipment, and frankly speaking, the yanks probably did not put stealth as a foremost property for this design, preferring performance and volume over stealth.
Your next post simply ruined it all.
sg ty tell me that yankess go with a group.so,i think they think they dunt need
stealth.
2.This little red dot put stealth above all!!
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
sg ty tell me that yankess go with a group.so,i think they think they dunt need
stealth.
2.This little red dot put stealth above all!!
I don't think you got my point but that's ok. -
Not a single person here including me, knows what the stealth performance data is for either the Formidable or LCS. Yet there are people here who claim they know something about stealth.
How can you say that the Formidable is more stealthy than the LCS just because it has less windows or than it looks more 'clean'?
The Formidable are modifications of La Fayette class which have been around for a while now whereas the LCS is a fresh design.
Now I don't know what the stealth performance is of each ship, but I'm not the one going around bullshitting to be some expert.
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
Not a single person here including me, knows what the stealth performance data is for either the Formidable or LCS. Yet there are people here who claim they know something about stealth.
The Formidable are modifications of La Fayette class which have been around for a while now whereas the LCS is a fresh design.
Now I don't know what the stealth performance is of each ship, but I'm not the one going around bullshitting to be some expert.
dude, haha , you missed the butt of the joke :P
lionnoisy is implying that the MGB or RSN fearless class are actually stealth ships because they feature a clean nice looking deck design.
if that dosent show how shallow, stupid and moronic he is, i dont know what does.
How can you say that the Formidable is more stealthy than the LCS just because it has less windows or than it looks more 'clean'?
lionnoisy has special abilities beyond the average human being. he can see stealth problems, and detect the limitations of all stealth vessels. he can even see the JSF's VLO stealth limitations because he has skimmed through a carlo kopp article, and be aware of even small tiny limitations.
this intelligent superbeing has claimed that formidable class is more stealthy because he can see the difference.
there are always the lunatic fringe who share the lionnoisy's understanding of it. im sure you belong safely to the sane, rational majority of folks who can see the pure simple idiocity thats lionnoisy spouts regularly, is usually a figment of his deraged imagination.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Very clean??!!
I might agree with your statement that Formidable indeed made more effort than the LCS as far as RCS is concerned and hence disagree with Asian Aussie.
But I must say exposing your foxcle leaves a fair bit of space for more equipment, and frankly speaking, the yanks probably did not put stealth as a foremost property for this design, preferring performance and volume over stealth.
Your next post simply ruined it all.
Thanks for sg ty telling me that Yankees dunt fear exposing their position
for they travel in group.They think their fire power can scare away
enemy.
A matter of choice between more space and bitts on deck
Oh i think i get your point lah.RSN frigates' bitts are concealed and
still can sail for 22 days alone,without any resupply!!
So,i think it is a matter of choice and the degree of desire to achieve
the targets.
below--Singapore frigate.concealed bitts.
concealed bitts sure can reflect less RCS than exposed bitts.Right?
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/p/2008-04-25/0743497139.html
references
Singapore Navy frigate 22 days without touching land
Recently out at Ex RIMPAC, SSG Michael and his fellow chefs
had the daunting task of keeping morale up, as RSS STEADFAST
tested its sustainability, embarking on a mission to be the fi rst RSN
ship to stay out at sea for 22 days without touching land. Having to
work within ration constraints, SSG Michael also ensured that the
menu changed constantly to give the crew’s taste buds a different
experience daily.----EOQRSNavy NEWS---ISSUE 04 2008
Navy News Issue 4 2008
-
I wont shy to say SG ship,oil rigs design and building not so bad.
Of course,we still have to learn from others in naval design etc.
Singapore has 70 per cent of the world market for jack-up rigs and 70 per cent of the global market for the conversion of Floating Production Storage Offloading units. It also has a 20 per cent share of the world market for ship repair.
http://www.edb.gov.sg/edb/sg/en_uk/index/industry_sectors/marine___offshore/facts_and_figures.html
@@@@@@@@
do u think design a tailored made rig is easy?
Do u think we get the jobs becos Keppel etc charge a very low fee?
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
dude, haha , you missed the butt of the joke :P
lionnoisy is implying that the MGB or RSN fearless class are actually stealth ships because they feature a clean nice looking deck design.
if that dosent show how shallow, stupid and moronic he is, i dont know what does.
lionnoisy has special abilities beyond the average human being. he can see stealth problems, and detect the limitations of all stealth vessels. he can even see the JSF's VLO stealth limitations because he has skimmed through a carlo kopp article, and be aware of even small tiny limitations.
this intelligent superbeing has claimed that formidable class is more stealthy because he can see the difference.
there are always the lunatic fringe who share the lionnoisy's understanding of it. im sure you belong safely to the sane, rational majority of folks who can see the pure simple idiocity thats lionnoisy spouts regularly, is usually a figment of his deraged imagination.
Have I say SG ship is stealth?Thats mean totally invisible in radar.
i dunt think any ship is 100% stealth.I just said--
Look at SG ship try to be stealth--
u can see no window and very 'clean' to reduce RCS!!
Did i say no RCS at all?NO!!I just say REDUCE.
Just to reduce RCS!!Not 100% stealth.
Will less window reduce RCS?Yes.
Will no bitts on decks reduce RCS?yes.
These all just a small things which SG can do to reduce RCS.
We cant afford to spend billions just on one ship
to be so called Stealth ship.We wont use a fancy name
to build a new class of ship.
