Our proud stealth frigates fleet now fully operational
-
The final two of a fleet of six stealth frigates, RSS Stalwart and RSS Supreme, were commissioned at the Changi Naval Base today, according to a media statement. With all six frigates brought into service, the Republic of Singapore Navy's (RSN) Formidable-class Frigate Squadron is fully operational. Officiating at the commissioning ceremony, Minister for Defence Teo Chee Hean said, "The frigates, with their longer range and reach, will significantly increase the RSN's ability to protect our Sea Lines of Communication. This is a critical mission as the lion's share of Singapore's trade is conducted by sea." "Recently, there has been a surge in the frequency of piracy attacks in the Gulf of Aden and the coast off Somalia. More than 100 ships have been attacked in the past year. The Gulf of Aden is a vital waterway for ships transiting the Red Sea and Suez Canal connecting Asia and Europe. These pirates prey on the global trading system and have raked in an estimated US$120 million dollars in ransom money," Minister Teo added. Singapore is situated at the key international sea routes of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, which link the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Threats to the freedom of navigation ? whether they come from pirates or terrorists ? will have an adverse impact on the economy and on regional peace and stability. The stealth frigates' state-of-the-art combat capabilities and systems will therefore enhance the RSN's ability to protect Singapore's Sea Lines of Communication and boost the RSN's capability to integrate its operations with the Army and Air Force. The full potential of the frigates however will only be realised when the Sikorsky S-70B naval helicopters are fully integrated later this year. The helicopter crews have been training in San Diego, California, since November 2007. And in the second half of this year, RSS Stalwart will be deployed to San Diego for six months to undergo integration training with the helicopters. These naval helicopters will extend the range over which the frigates can conduct anti-surface and anti-submarine operations. So much fire power to fight pirates?
-
How come they never mentioned the Aster AAM system on the new frigate , I read somewhere it can hit target up to 30 km away
Imagine the frigate can sneak into kuantan or butterworth and down their Migs or hornet before they take off
Probably undisclosed will also include some SSM, like tomahawk , which can pierce right into the heart of our adversary.
-
Originally posted by seancannot:
How come they never mentioned the Aster AAM system on the new frigate , I read somewhere it can hit target up to 30 km away
Imagine the frigate can sneak into kuantan or butterworth and down their Migs or hornet before they take off
Probably undisclosed will also include some SSM, like tomahawk , which can pierce right into the heart of our adversary.
can u remove the locations names.This will lead to war in the net.
-
-
pl read how DCN transfer technology to ST Marine
and have to be responsible for the quality
of the 5 ships built by ST Marine!!
http://www.dcnsgroup.com/files/succesStory/pdf/ss_formidable.pdf
2.i like the photo here
http://bochupda.blogspot.com/2008/02/commissioning-parade.html
wat a stealth--note the angle of the hull to reflect radar wave
frigate replace the smallest ship here--the missile gun boat--MGB.
sorry,i forget the link of the above photo.posted by gary....
3.the RSN in Chinese--
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%96%B0%E5%8A%A0%E5%9D%A1%E5%85%B1%E5%92%8C%E5%9B%BD%E6%B5%B7%E5%86%9B%E9%83%A8%E9%98%9F
-
oh sorry--only 4 here.u guys really read my posts.tx.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
all 6 frigates were here---but two without superstructures!!
Huh?Your eyes ok boh?
-
I failed my maths in sec school. I'm sure I count 4 though..
-
Originally posted by seancannot:
How come they never mentioned the Aster AAM system on the new frigate , I read somewhere it can hit target up to 30 km away
Imagine the frigate can sneak into kuantan or butterworth and down their Migs or hornet before they take off
Probably undisclosed will also include some SSM, like tomahawk , which can pierce right into the heart of our adversary.
actually i dont think it will be possible for them to sneak up to butterworth and kuatan anyway.
1) stealth is quite misleading. VLO should be more appropriate. it dosent mean the frigate is invisible on radar. just that it will appear as a small fishing boat. that would do good in the crowded malacca straits, but its definitely not a super solution.
2) stealth frigate has a pretty unique superstructure. easy to identify with eyeball MkI
3) with plenty of marine patrol aircraft in the MMEA and UAVs and choppers (especially in the MMEA), it would be pretty easy to do a coastline run and conduct a visual eyeball mk I search for a stealth frigate
4) UAVs, SAR, Commercial SAT imaging, all could contribute to the stealth frigate's detection.
5) far easier to detect and scramble fighters to bomb our frigates then our frigates sneaking up on them undetected.
sadly, our VLS systems on the formidable dont allow the mounting of such missiles.(i.e tomahawk etc etc. )
the frigate is not really an offensive weapon. think of it as a extendable mobile AA defence shield that [b]compensates for our lack of strategic depth.[/b] the further we can base them, the further we stretch our shield (which may not always be a good thing given the density/distribution and ratios and all that stuff)
@lionnoisy :
be nice and get the fuck out of this guy's thread. you and your special-4-ships-can-become-6 -ships-with-2-without-superstructure opinion arent welcome.
-
something strange though.
why is the frigate on the extreme right hand corner berthed in an opposite direction from the rest of the other frigates ?
-
anyone got any ideas/comments on how are our stealth frigate meant to be deployed ?
because if the LST is meant to be the key hub / nexus interlinking our naval assets, wont it be quite a prime target ?
i mean, imagine a big fat humongous nice target that is surrounded by several small fishing boats. isnt that kinda really a dead give away (maybe not really within the crowded malacca straits, but i m pretty positive it would be a pretty unique pattern on radar)
-
Is it possible that the opposite facing direction Frigate is heading out to sea soon?? ?? Or maybe a "stand-by" response ship? But then it sounds weird to have only one lone ship on " stand-by".
From Navy website:
First Flotilla comprises the Missile Corvette Squadron and the Frigate Squadron. Third Flotilla consists of the Landing Ship Tank and Fast Craft and Training Unit Squadron and the Civil Resource Squadron. The Submarine Squadron provides an added sub-surface dimension to Fleet Operations
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/navy/about_us/org_structure.html
I am guessing that the 1st Flotilla (plus the 171Sqn) provides protective layer for the LSTs. Or that 1st Flotilla (plus 171 Sqn) gives the aggressor capability while our Patrol Vessels provides cover for the other assests...
Just my guesses and 2 cents worth, I am not a seaman anyway ... -
can u see the exhaust and smoke when Frigate is full steam on the sea?
http://sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/291336
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/19018
-
why do we need people to spam pics?
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
why do we need people to spam pics?
he's trolling. some unloved, unappreciated, unwanted sec school kid looking for some attention here.
@gd4U :
im not too sure, moving in an out of berth usually requires a tug boat yes/no ? wouldnt make sense to damage a pretty expensive ship by having it rush out of port.
i m not too sure about the first flotillia and 2nd flotillia. i think they are more for organization and administrational efficiencies than anything else.
i dont think we'd go to any operation while leaving our LSTs uncovered and unprotected.
-
My opinion was that was shouldn't have gone with the French. The frigate provided is likely to be a deadend in terms of further development, and the Aster system is likely to be truncated. The French have very little attention span towards long term development of weapon systems, and the Rafale is proof of this. If we went with a Mk41 VLS system, or similar, we would have have more growth.
But we went with the French probably because they offered more goodies as part of the package. Likely in the form of system codes, technology transfer etc. While the Americans were likely to be stingier. Ah well.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I failed my maths in sec school. I'm sure I count 4 though..
oh sorry--only 4 here.u guys really read my posts.tx.
pic spam--see more--lah
wat a stealth..
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
My opinion was that was shouldn't have gone with the French. The frigate provided is likely to be a deadend in terms of further development, and the Aster system is likely to be truncated. The French have very little attention span towards long term development of weapon systems, and the Rafale is proof of this. If we went with a Mk41 VLS system, or similar, we would have have more growth.
But we went with the French probably because they offered more goodies as part of the package. Likely in the form of system codes, technology transfer etc. While the Americans were likely to be stingier. Ah well.
can u tell us wat is deadend in terms of further development?
2.u are a typical Opposition Party in military that whatever SG dunt buy from
USA,there must be some goodies offered by non-USA country.
u just imply SG that the best choice shall be USA products.
3.Can u tel me any Yankees ship just looks stealth comparable
with SG Frigate?What are the status of any ship u mention?
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
My opinion was that was shouldn't have gone with the French. The frigate provided is likely to be a deadend in terms of further development, and the Aster system is likely to be truncated. The French have very little attention span towards long term development of weapon systems, and the Rafale is proof of this. If we went with a Mk41 VLS system, or similar, we would have have more growth.
But we went with the French probably because they offered more goodies as part of the package. Likely in the form of system codes, technology transfer etc. While the Americans were likely to be stingier. Ah well.
I wonder.But after reading all your posts, where actually do you make these guesses?
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
I wonder.But after reading all your posts, where actually do you make these guesses?
The trouble with German/French/Italian defence development, is that that don't have the money or attention span to drive it. Then the Europeans have a habit of going local for everything even hampers it further. Take the French for example. Their two older carriers are already decommissioned, and they only have the Charles de Gaulle. They tried to co-develop a CV with the Brits, but that failed because the French couldn't find the budget to fund any more carriers. Never mind that the Charles de Gaulle was a magnificent disaster that took years of refit to get it fully operational, in addition to the already delayed construction.
European tendency to share development hasn't been successful either. Part of the problem was that a prequisite for funding any project is that everyone must have a piece of the pie. So instead of having a few production lines in one place, they duplicate it a few times in a few different countries. The Eurofighter Typhoon is a nice example. Throw in the fact that they don't share a common configuration results in a plane that is exorbitantly expensive. More expensive than what it is worth.
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
The trouble with German/French/Italian defence development, is that that don't have the money or attention span to drive it. Then the Europeans have a habit of going local for everything even hampers it further. Take the French for example. Their two older carriers are already decommissioned, and they only have the Charles de Gaulle. They tried to co-develop a CV with the Brits, but that failed because the French couldn't find the budget to fund any more carriers. Never mind that the Charles de Gaulle was a magnificent disaster that took years of refit to get it fully operational, in addition to the already delayed construction.
European tendency to share development hasn't been successful either. Part of the problem was that a prequisite for funding any project is that everyone must have a piece of the pie. So instead of having a few production lines in one place, they duplicate it a few times in a few different countries. The Eurofighter Typhoon is a nice example. Throw in the fact that they don't share a common configuration results in a plane that is exorbitantly expensive. More expensive than what it is worth.
How true...
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
can u tell us wat is deadend in terms of further development?
2.u are a typical Opposition Party in military that whatever SG dunt buy from
USA,there must be some goodies offered by non-USA country.
u just imply SG that the best choice shall be USA products.
3.Can u tel me any Yankees ship just looks stealth comparable
with SG Frigate?What are the status of any ship u mention?
Oh for crying out loud. Stealth for warships is over-rated. I'd rather have an excellent combat management system and missiles and radar to go with it, than a boat that is barely armed well enough to defend itself. These days, missiles are smart enough to home on jamming and our frigate will be a great target for such missiles.
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
The trouble with German/French/Italian defence development, is that that don't have the money or attention span to drive it. Then the Europeans have a habit of going local for everything even hampers it further. Take the French for example. Their two older carriers are already decommissioned, and they only have the Charles de Gaulle. They tried to co-develop a CV with the Brits, but that failed because the French couldn't find the budget to fund any more carriers. Never mind that the Charles de Gaulle was a magnificent disaster that took years of refit to get it fully operational, in addition to the already delayed construction.
European tendency to share development hasn't been successful either. Part of the problem was that a prequisite for funding any project is that everyone must have a piece of the pie. So instead of having a few production lines in one place, they duplicate it a few times in a few different countries. The Eurofighter Typhoon is a nice example. Throw in the fact that they don't share a common configuration results in a plane that is exorbitantly expensive. More expensive than what it is worth.
i had a feeling we got screwed by DCNS over the formidable class when i read december's Defence technology.
DCNS is marketing a new line of COTs Frigates and smaller sized ships. IIRC, the platform series is called Gowind and there are several baseline variants with a large frigate down to Marine patrol variant.
http://www.dcnsgroup.com/cen/gowind.html
they apparently feature stealth and next gen concepts such as a lockgate at the back to launch USVs and recover USVs and RIBs.
in that sense, they transferred to us technical knowledge and know how of a class of warships that (la fayette) they no longer intend to build. no real loss to them for transferring old stuff.
but the upside of this trade is, we get 6 frigates for a resonable price. access to reduced RCS and low observation technology (stealth is stretching it).
we dont upset the region's status quo too (up north got Leikus, we got formidables)
now imagine how this RCS and low observation technology could go into making a new generation MCV or a generation 1.5 LST, and possible alternative applications on different platforms (afterall , stealth is a matter of design + RAM)
-
noticed something really unique.
the formidable class actually has a really really shiny paintjob. to the point it actually reflects the bow waves around this ship.
see this picture to appreciate
makes me wonder what kinda RAM was applied or is being used
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
Oh for crying out loud. Stealth for warships is over-rated. I'd rather have an excellent combat management system and missiles and radar to go with it, than a boat that is barely armed well enough to defend itself. These days, missiles are smart enough to home on jamming and our frigate will be a great target for such missiles.
he's to dumb to realize the caveats in the "stealth" tag.
it is not immune to radar detection. the navy has mentioned that it looks like a small fishing boat on radar.
neither is it visually invisble.
its just lionnoisy scraping the bottom of the barrel. he's running out of things to bash other countries for.
so far, he has covered
1) guns (pwned, tried to argue EGLM and SAR21)
2) armour (bronco, Bionix)
3) ships (formidable)what else is there ? nothing else much already. he will revolve and rotate around these topics when there are no other topics to cover.