Our proud stealth frigates fleet now fully operational
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I failed my maths in sec school. I'm sure I count 4 though..
"stealth" ma
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
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)
Well, in the end, we built the remaining vessels. Sure they are better than anything in the region, but the systems we got, well, I think it's possible to develop them any further, barring us paying Thales to do the design work for us. Though I am personally sick and tired of the amount of sucking cock to ST Engineering. Bunch of .. leaches.
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
Well, in the end, we built the remaining vessels. Sure they are better than anything in the region, but the systems we got, well, I think it's possible to develop them any further, barring us paying Thales to do the design work for us.
ok lah. somewhat agree with what you said.
i wonder if the agreement with DCNS allow us to reexport the reduced RCS and other stuff out. if it does, it is a potential goldmine.
how many naval builders possess stealth know-how ?
Though I am personally sick and tired of the amount of sucking cock to ST Engineering. Bunch of .. leaches.
im sure you meant Leeches. leaching is when the minerals and stuff get leaked out into the surrounding environment
in any case, dont think of it this way. you ought to think of it in terms of the military industrial complex.
aside from retaining a certain degree of self-sufficiency, technical know-how and independence, it does these other things
1) keep the money within the system (whatever profit ST eng makes goes back to the big G anyway)
2) employs and keeps singaporean workers at shipyards busy (contestable no doubt)
3) potential future revenue stream (stealth LST anyone in the region ? almost every navy in the region has an eye on a LST / LPD equivalent since the meluaboh incident demonstrated their effectiveness)its not as if its like Up north, like their screwed up offshore patrol vessel procurement process ended up with billions being embezzeled and no oneheld accountable.
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
ok lah. somewhat agree with what you said.
i wonder if the agreement with DCNS allow us to reexport the reduced RCS and other stuff out. if it does, it is a potential goldmine.
how many naval builders possess stealth know-how ?
im sure you meant Leeches. leaching is when the minerals and stuff get leaked out into the surrounding environment
in any case, dont think of it this way. you ought to think of it in terms of the military industrial complex.
aside from retaining a certain degree of self-sufficiency, technical know-how and independence, it does these other things
1) keep the money within the system (whatever profit ST eng makes goes back to the big G anyway)
2) employs and keeps singaporean workers at shipyards busy (contestable no doubt)
3) potential future revenue stream (stealth LST anyone in the region ? almost every navy in the region has an eye on a LST / LPD equivalent since the meluaboh incident demonstrated their effectiveness)its not as if its like Up north, like their screwed up offshore patrol vessel procurement process ended up with billions being embezzeled and no oneheld accountable.
The issue with ST is that they have very little in-house capability to research and develop products. A lot of their products were based on technology they purchased from abroad. Take the drive train of the Terrex. That was purchased from an Irish company. ST is more like some... salesman that goes around selling stuff they didn't invent. Throw in their notorious QC problems for extra kick. Never mind that it is likely the right people don't get credit either. *grumble*
As for know how to build stealth ships, very few. It is likely the US and Europeans are pretty good at it, since they are great at material science thus RAM materials. The US of course remains the world leader at it.
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
The issue with ST is that they have very little in-house capability to research and develop products. A lot of their products were based on technology they purchased from abroad. Take the drive train of the Terrex. That was purchased from an Irish company. ST is more like some... salesman that goes around selling stuff they didn't invent. Throw in their notorious QC problems for extra kick. Never mind that it is likely the right people don't get credit either. *grumble*
all very true and valid points. but lets look at some other defence projects for example. take a look at the M1 abrams.
how much of their parts and technology is uniquely american ? the chassis was derived from joint US-german research project to produce a tank (manufactured by chrysler yes, but based on US-german technical cooperation)
the gun for the M1A2 is a licensed built L44 from KMW.
truth is, as weapons system become more complex , it not longer seems feasible to construct all components in house.
just look at the recent 787 / A380 and F35 manufacturing process. they are not even located within a single country but cross continental, global efforts to harness the best possible synergies.
that being said and done, ST eng is a pretty diverse firm isnt it ? maybe the weapons side (is it ST kinetics ? not sure) has more of a "buy and resell" business model, presenting very little originality and extremely little value add.
but the other aspects of the conglomerate are pretty solid and strong. ST aviation has a strong solid reputation for good work. ST marine derives most of its revenue from rigs and oil exploration work conversions. in short, a pretty good blue-chip firm with strong fundamentals from non-core defence sectors.
i m not being pro ST or anything. i do think that they have alot of issues especially with their weapons development (i think the ST kintetics branch basically relies on SAF spending to survive)
but the fact is that ST's main areas are non-defence related. and they do provide some form of overlap / synergies with defence. Its basically turning to the most efficient solution avaliable since what the SAF wants, ST engineering is able to provide within its various commercial divisions.
if ST eng were to survive on arms sales alone, ST eng would die. traditionally strong arnaments manufacturers come from countries with large militaries and a strong domestic demand.
As for know how to build stealth ships, very few. It is likely the US and Europeans are pretty good at it, since they are great at material science thus RAM materials. The US of course remains the world leader at it.
yeap. but how many countries posess the technology and are willing to export it pretty liberally in terms of sales ?
the frogs are known to be indiscriminate with sales , but such indiscriminate sales often comes with a price. America can be pretty stingy with technology when they want to be.
SG isnt exactly very stringent on Arms exports and whom we sell to as well. just look at the amount of small arms flooding Burma and used by the Junta and the anti Junta rebels.
in that sense, yeap, we might have obtained ourselves a niche market segment, but nontheless, a segment that gives us a precious foothold to exploit the possible "troubled peace" scenarios that most people envisage for the next 50 years
-
below was his speech......is that a heads up.......for Gulf of Aden?
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.(1)
As a maritime nation, Singapore shares the concerns of the international community regarding the situation in the Gulf of Aden. We fully support the ongoing efforts by both the United Nations and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to address the piracy situation there. In 2008, Singapore co-sponsored UN Security Council Resolutions 1838 and 1846, to demonstrate our support for the international community to take greater efforts in the fight against these pirates. Through these resolutions, the Security Council called upon states and regional organisations to act in cooperation with the Somali Transitional Federal Government to fight piracy and armed robbery at sea off the Somali coast, in accordance with relevant international law. -
sgstars is correct that many major weapons systems contain disparate technologies which are by necessity acquired from many sources.
There are numerous very specialized technologies which are in the hands of individual companies which produce these state of the art equipment. They are leaders in their fields. It is no surprise that major weapons designers incorporate these leading edge equipment into their systems.
It is not only ST which does this. In order to supply the best balance of equipment suite catered to their customers' requirements, all major weapons suppliers do the same.
You can be on the leading edge of a particular technology only if you are very specialized. Clearly, ST is not specialized in any specialised technology and this is not necessarily a bad thing.
-
It is quite safe to say that quite a few of ST's products is derived from Singapore's defence research establishment.
As a company, the company is probably as bad as Chartered Semiconductors when it comes to anything. If you get the hint.
-
By the way, with regards to that "Laser designating" thread in the other military nuts, a laser designator isn't "coded". It is a Q-Switched laser which is Q-switched at a frequency which the laser seeker, which samples at near -similar rate, can track the laser. This is so that it doesn't track random scattering of light from the background.
Don't bother to credit who described it.
-
I'm not so sure there's a dichotomy between "coded" and "pulse frequency".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-switching
Coding is merely allocating a numeric number to a fixed frequency so that it can be id-ed.
Its quite funny to read about Q-switch lasers removing tattoos. Will this encourage some fellas to test their laser designators work....
-
Originally posted by slim10:
I'm not so sure there's a dichotomy between "coded" and "pulse frequency".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-switching
Coding is merely allocating a numeric number to a fixed frequency so that it can be id-ed.
Its quite funny to read about Q-switch lasers removing tattoos. Will this encourage some fellas to test their laser designators work....
The proper scientific term is Pulse Frequency. Coded.. probably military slang...
Pulsed Lasers have the advantage of high peak power (which means your retina will get a might big burn if you aren't careful.)
-
Was reading this book written partly by a general on laser weapons (and a few pages on laser designators and how it works). Illuminating if a bit dated.
http://www.amazon.com/Laser-Weapons-Dawn-New-Military/dp/0306443295/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232709420&sr=8-13
I'd recommend this to anyone who wants to know more about lasers. Trying to understand the difference between Nag and Co2 lasers is beyond me. Just know that one has better penetration for smoke etc.
-
Well, if you really want to know what lasers are about, reading Fundamentals of Photonics by Saleh and .. someone else, or Lasers by Siegman might be a better deal...
-
Carl Teich - that's the someone else. Looks academic though.
-
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
Accept that the frigate will see them first always. In war time, it would be an entirely different proposition.
How many maritime planes and choppers in the inventory for Malaysia`s vast coastline?
-
Originally posted by Fratboy:
Accept that the frigate will see them first always. In war time, it would be an entirely different proposition.
How many maritime planes and choppers in the inventory for Malaysia`s vast coastline?
there are doubts about the herkale's radar. go read them up on the other milnuts site.
go google up MMEA's website ? if you'd count MMEA and RMN helicopter assets, can safely say RSN's helicopter assets would be severly outnumbered. MMEA has been on a pretty aggressive expansion plan lately. i count several dauphins in its inventory.
saw one flying close to singapore causeway when i went into JB to do some new year shopping.
and never underestimate any potential enemy. that is the first step to defeat.
ever heard of fog of war ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_of_war
or the guy who came up with it :
Prussian general Clausewitz ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz
-
Herakles Radar is just a S Band AESA radar that is rotated at 60rpm. It's great versus our neighbours, but don't count on it being as great as the Aegis. Not least, rotating the radar itself reduces the sensor resolution, and also response time.
-
I'm just wondering; shouldn't our ships be able to use datalinks with the RSAF's radar Hawkeyes and their future jet replacements? War isn't a vaccum, after all. :P
Hmm, I'll just throw in my two cents. I love the Formidables for their modernity, stealthiness, and all, but I can't shake the feeling that we could do better. For example, the Formidables don't have CIWS guns, and will have to depend on the untested Asters if the worst comes to the worst. Only the Europeans use those missiles, mainly because they seem to come as a package with any French/Brit ships. I'm no expert, but missile-on-missile targeting sounds rather dubious; even the Americans haven't got it totally figured out yet. Better to spray bullets as the customers come to the shop as well, eh?
Also, yes, the French missile launch systems probably aren't capable with foreign tech and future expansion, with the exception of the usual things like Harpoon missiles. It's probably some dastardly French tactic to make sure we buy their upgrades and add-ons.
Then again, I hope that we've gotten at least some expertise in shipbuilding out of this. Besides, we need these little babies to guard our LSTs, show the flag, to stage naval helicopters out of, and so on. Rather useful buys, these little frigates.
-
I dun think ST ship building capabilities are there yet, after technology transfer of the PVs, MCMVs, MCVs, FFGs. I guess they need more time. Which leads me to wonder is that part of the reasons that there was no replacement for Courageous.
-
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.
Heh! That I can agree with. The truly stealth warship is called a "submarine." =P
However, at the same time, your requirement for combat management systems, missiles and radar only is not really the best requirement for our type of Navy. What you've envisioned would have fit perfectly into the fleets of a large ocean-going navy tasked for power projection.
I'm not totally correct with this, so bear with me. The best ways to search for surface ships currently is with the use of aircraft with an active naval-search radar. That way, a large area of water is scanned fairly quickly since the aircraft is operating typically at altitude.
However, the problem has been the elimination of sea-clutter from the radar returns. Given various sea-states, the clutter varies. Hence, detection of vessels with radar also changes. In order to have a picture that means anything at all, the clutter elimination level has to increased, that is, filtering out signals below a certain strength, and only displaying those above it.
The idea of a stealth warship does take advantage of that situation, especially in tropical waters. If the radar signature is reduced to the level that can be "eliminated" as clutter, the warship is practically invisible to radar unless the operator intends to contend with a more confusing clutter returns. I think the word I'm looking for such adjustments is "gain."
Hence, anyone who intends to hunt our ship, has to decide or not whether to contend with more confusing clutter level in order to HOPE to detect one of our frigates, OR set the tolerance level for clutter higher and HOPE that our frigates aren't really around.
I wish I could find a better picture, but this was the best I could trawl off the net.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/cv-67_sps-67_040922-n-1205w-001.jpg
Thats a naval search radar (non airborne) with fairly high clutter levels filtered out. What if such adjustments were made and it accidentally eliminates the formidable classes from the picture?
-
That's why the 1st line of defence is still the airforce fighter.
Stealth also reduces the radar signature for lock-on. That means shooters have to come closer. Its an advantage but not a "end-all".
What will help is to create false dummy signatures eg USVs with similar signatures that will prevent easy radar ID but I'm sure RSN already knows this. Its part of those secret gundams that no one knows about...
What will help further is heavy-EW that will degrade adversary radar. That will help mask radar signatures even further. That's why there's these new CAEWs armed with Israeli tech that's entering service....
-
If I am not wrong, some of the latest Aegis upgrades and the latest iteration of Aegis, are better equipped to handle clutter and sea-skimming missiles.
Now as for EW, too much of it has a habit of having "home on jamming" missiles flying towards the source of the jamming. Just about any Anti-ship missile with active/semi-active radar guidance can do that.
-
Doesn't HOJ depend on the kind of jamming techniques used.....
-
Originally posted by slim10:
Doesn't HOJ depend on the kind of jamming techniques used.....
Trouble with any jamming is that the inverse square law still works. Barring using a type of jamming that works like a virus (don't ask me whether that works or not. I just hear of it), home on jamming will just home on the source because the source is the most intense.
-
there are doubts about the herkale's radar. go read them up on the other milnuts site.
go google up MMEA's website ? if you'd count MMEA and RMN helicopter assets, can safely say RSN's helicopter assets would be severly outnumbered. MMEA has been on a pretty aggressive expansion plan lately. i count several dauphins in its inventory.
saw one flying close to singapore causeway when i went into JB to do some new year shopping.
and never underestimate any potential enemy. that is the first step to defeat.
ever heard of fog of war ?
Understandably, Malaysia`s MMEA would need more flyable and maritime assets given the breath of maritime and longitudinal space they have to cover. However, my question is how many helicopters do they have ? And how numerically sufficient to cover the maritime borders of Malaysia ? Do you have the figures to lend credence to your argument as I do not know. Thank You.
The Herakles has a range of 250km(from the manufacturer`s site). Furthemore, they are important nodal points in the net-work centric net of sensors which allow the latter to leverage on other sensors. Why is it that thay cannot detect RCS heavy objects like the helicopters or MPAs first as compared, in your own words, to MK1 eyeball detection system? Under such circumstances, the Formidables would locate the MMEAs helicopters and MPAs first would you not think so? In a war, they are simply dead without help from the navy and airforce.
