Contrary to popular opinion, an anti-air missile like the Standard SM-2 is quite capable of sinking a ship. Sure not just one round, but a few. The SM-2 has an air to ground mode if required. Why do I say this? Simple, shrapnel sinks ships. It shears through the ship's hull and leaves it with innumerable number of holes. The end result is a never ending fight to keep the ship from leaking and then it sinks. Throw in very combustible rocket fuel that keeps burning, the ship will die either from a thousand cuts, or just burn to death. Mind, these missiles travel at MACH 4 and above. Kinetic energy alone would pierce most ship's hulls.
Originally posted by Underpaid:weasel, so true, but GBUs have a big flaw. They are mostly gravity bombs, which mean you have to get in very close, and it might be better not to have a 100M dollar (F-35 price range) fighter close in to such a range a $15,000 SAM can kill it.
The more traditional way to settle this is to fire long ranged anti-ship missiles like Harpoons or Exocets from far away in huge numbers and let them swarm the ship. Less costly than losing a plane and pilot by 100x (1 Harpoon = 1M +/-, 1 F-35 = 100M- see wiki for cost comparison)
JDAMs (esp the lighter 500lb GBU-38/54s) have a good range (~10-24km) which is best fired on a level flight. An F-35 is actually perfect as it can get in far closer than an F-15 or F-16. An F-35 can also use SDB IIs (80-110km range). Alternatively, if one uses the JDAM-ER, then range extends dramatically.
$15,000 SAMs can't reach beyond 10km. $XXXk SAMs can reach up to ~40 kms. $Xm SAMs can reach 100km and beyond. An SM-6 can cost as much as $10m each.
JSOWs of which the C variant is anti-ship have good range as well (110km). 110km means beyond Aster range. RSAF has JSOWs C variants.
A JDAM is cheap at $50k each. A JSOW costs $400k. A Harp cost ~$3m each (equivalent to 60 JDAMs).
Looking at this region's navy, how many air defence ships do others have? Looking at the SAMs equipping the ships of the region's navies, a lot of potential targets even for GBUs.
Originally posted by weasel1962:JDAMs (esp the lighter 500lb GBU-38/54s) have a good range (~10-24km) which is best fired on a level flight. An F-35 is actually perfect as it can get in far closer than an F-15 or F-16. An F-35 can also use SDB IIs (80-110km range). Alternatively, if one uses the JDAM-ER, then range extends dramatically.
$15,000 SAMs can't reach beyond 10km. $XXXk SAMs can reach up to ~40 kms. $Xm SAMs can reach 100km and beyond. An SM-6 can cost as much as $10m each.
JSOWs of which the C variant is anti-ship have good range as well (110km). 110km means beyond Aster range. RSAF has JSOWs C variants.
A JDAM is cheap at $50k each. A JSOW costs $400k. A Harp cost ~$3m each (equivalent to 60 JDAMs).
Looking at this region's navy, how many air defence ships do others have? Looking at the SAMs equipping the ships of the region's navies, a lot of potential targets even for GBUs.
So why does Singapore need the long range Aster 30s?
Because it was designed as a convoy/fleet air defence/network ship. Or at least that is what the RSN say. That it was to be the nexus of a networked fleet, hence it needs a bit of fleet defence capability.
And though the missile/JSOW has a very long range, it still has to get to range = 0 to kill a target. This is where your chance to save yourself or your ship consort comes in. Though if weasel is right, you probably only have a shot at the bomb/missile, not the actual fighter as it is very far out of range that even if you shot at it, it has a lot of time to evade.
I still don't want ANY pilot or fighter in SAM range though, a single lucky shot and a 100M dollar plane can go splash for the cost of a "xxx K" SAM. Not to mention the loss of combat efficiency with the loss of a plane from a squadron. weasel probably has the best idea, flood the ships AA with so many targets from range that one is bound to hit.
"Throw in very combustible rocket fuel that keeps burning, the ship will die either from a thousand cuts, or just burn to death. Mind, these missiles travel at MACH 4 and above. Kinetic energy alone would pierce most ship's hulls."
Remember the Shefield!!! :)
This is also why CIWS is getting out of date, a wall of 20mm can't stop a Mach 2-4 missile even if it hits, the momentum is too great, the debris and the solid fuel booster will still coast into the target on momentum alone. This is one of the reason for larger calibre air-defence guns nowadays. At least with a larger calibre, the chance of knocking the trash to one side is greater.
Originally posted by amanda.lu862:So why does Singapore need the long range Aster 30s?
Anti-Ballistic Missiles.
Originally posted by Underpaid:Because it was designed as a convoy/fleet air defence/network ship. Or at least that is what the RSN say. That it was to be the nexus of a networked fleet, hence it needs a bit of fleet defence capability.
And though the missile/JDAM has a very long range, it still has to get to range = 0 to kill a target. This is where your chance to save yourself or your ship consort comes in. Though if weasel is right, you probably only have a shot at the bomb/missile, not the actual fighter as it is very far out of range that even if you shot at it, it has a lot of time to evade.
True but who owns cruise missiles that require the Aster 30s.
The JDAM is good but I still think Russian cruise missles are no match.
Haven't read official confirmation that RSN has actually inducted the Aster 30s.
Having said that, there is still the benefits of a layered defence.
To actually whack a Formidable frigate, one needs to detect and then ID the frigate before it is attacked. In order to detect the FFG, one needs an MPA aircraft/radar. If an MPA aircraft gets too close, then the AF shoots it down. Dun forget that the FFGs are also stealth frigates ie radar signature reduced so anyone will have to go nearer to detect it by radar.
If the other party can't detect the FFG, then the opposing aircraft may enter into the SAM envelope without even realising it.
The first line of defence is still the air force. However, its far more costly to maintain planes in the air than missiles on the ground. Hence the benefit of a 2nd (and 3rd) lines of defence.
"Anti-Ballistic Missiles"
From where? :)
And amanda, almost EVERY navy has a form of cruise missile or other. And if you're drooling over the Sunburn and Onyx, you really do not want the Brahamos against you. And it's one of the proposed armament of Malaysia's Kedah class warships.
weasel, there was a Mindef propoganda piece that stated that the FFGs operated a "unique configuration of Astor 15s and 30s". Can't find it, but I take it to mean they wanted all Astor 30s but were too cheap to spring for it, so some of the launchers got short changed. :P
Originally posted by weasel1962:Haven't read official confirmation that RSN has actually inducted the Aster 30s.
Having said that, there is still the benefits of a layered defence.
To actually whack a Formidable frigate, one needs to detect and then ID the frigate before it is attacked. In order to detect the FFG, one needs an MPA aircraft/radar. If an MPA aircraft gets too close, then the AF shoots it down. Dun forget that the FFGs are also stealth frigates ie radar signature reduced so anyone will have to go nearer to detect it by radar.
If the other party can't detect the FFG, then the opposing aircraft may enter into the SAM envelope without even realising it.
The first line of defence is still the air force. However, its far more costly to maintain planes in the air than missiles on the ground. Hence the benefit of a 2nd (and 3rd) lines of defence.
Well I'm not sure the air force willl be around if say the frigate is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Do they expect to strike aircraft at long range or expect cruise missile attacks?
Originally posted by amanda.lu862:Well I'm not sure the air force willl be around if say the frigate is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Do they expect to strike aircraft at long range or expect cruise missile attacks?
Agreed that the AF may not be around in the middle of the Pac ocean.
However,
(a) that is not exactly the operations area that the FFGs are intended or designed to operate in; and
(b) Its a massive area to search (even with modern day MPAs).
In the context of the SAF, the first line of defence is still the air force. And the area defended is still primarily Singapore.
Originally posted by Underpaid:"Anti-Ballistic Missiles"
From where? :)
And amanda, almost EVERY navy has a form of cruise missile or other. And if you're drooling over the Sunburn and Onyx, you really do not want the Brahamos against you. And it's one of the proposed armament of Malaysia's Kedah class warships.
weasel, there was a Mindef propoganda piece that stated that the FFGs operated a "unique configuration of Astor 15s and 30s". Can't find it, but I take it to mean they wanted all Astor 30s but were too cheap to spring for it, so some of the launchers got short changed. :P
Well, the Astor 30s are definitely a better bet against the Sunburn variety missiles, to be sure... :P
As for those, I suspect there are provisions, barring limitations due to the radar. The ones we are using aren't exactly up there in the top rungs of radar sets around....
"I suspect there are provisions, barring limitations due to the radar."
Yeah I heard speculation, but no hard facts. The RSN plays with it's cards very close to the vest.
OTOH, there ARE ways to bypass a crummy radar. Interlink with the Gulfstreams? You only need to guide until final aquisition, the Astor has it's own seeker. Possible solution?
"Well I'm not sure the air force willl be around if say the frigate is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean."
If the frigate is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in a war to defend Singapore... I say fire the navigator. :P
And that area, cruise missiles are more likely. Planes don't usually cruise far from their bases unless someone really screwed up and gave away the route taken, AND the "enemy" wants to do a really extended range sortie. More likely combatants are chance encounters with warships/subs due to their long cruising endurance.
There are facts like the herakles radar can't point upwards ie only up to 70deg elevation (official datasheet). In theory, any missile that has an inbound profile of more than 70 deg would not be trackable. The frigates were not intended as ABM platforms nor is there anyone with a proven ASBM capability.
Interestingly, one SAM system that has a limited TBM capability (in SG inventory and proven in that role in combat with the US marines) is the I-hawk.
"Interestingly, one SAM system that has a limited TBM capability (in SG inventory and proven in that role in combat with the US marines) is the I-hawk."
Had. Past tense. They mothballed it.
Originally posted by Underpaid:"Interestingly, one SAM system that has a limited TBM capability (in SG inventory and proven in that role in combat with the US marines) is the I-hawk."
Had. Past tense. They mothballed it.
Any idea when that happened?
Prob the missiles have reached their expiry date, it's prudent to avoid killing NSFs in a Nike-style explosion.
RSAF wanted to retire them early, but LG Leon Noi Xi told them they are the best in the world.
Actually the ships have been in the middle of the ocean--they must have in order to test fire the Aster 15 off the coast of France
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2008/apr/03apr08_nr.html
and in the Pacific to train with a USNavy CSG
http://www.c7f.navy.mil/news/2011/01-january/012.htm
You totally missed the point.
Originally posted by Underpaid:You totally missed the point.
What? I shown that the frigates have moved far
Originally posted by amanda.lu862:What? I shown that the frigates have moved far
You need to understand the difference between war-time and peace-time deployments. Eg F-15SG based at Mountainhome will not be based at Mountainhome if there's an impending threat to SG security.
The operational context of the frigates need to be seen in that light.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Underpaid, I think need to double confirm the I-hawk mothball story. The RSAF still featuring 163 sqn staff in the latest AF newsletter this year. As late as Nov last year nov, CAF visited 163 to see an I-hawk demo.
Think there was a misunderstanding, I meant the US has mothballed it in 2002 and replaced it with the Patriot not us. It still is a good system.
Originally posted by weasel1962:
You need to understand the difference between war-time and peace-time deployments. Eg F-15SG based at Mountainhome will not be based at Mountainhome if there's an impending threat to SG security.The operational context of the frigates need to be seen in that light.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Underpaid, I think need to double confirm the I-hawk mothball story. The RSAF still featuring 163 sqn staff in the latest AF newsletter this year. As late as Nov last year nov, CAF visited 163 to see an I-hawk demo.
Depends if they can get home in time. and if they are still up to date--why did one crash in Libya?
Same with the tanks supposedly kept in Taiwan
Planes in Taiwan, tanks in Thailand. Maybe tanks in Taiwan too? But I'm not sure on that. I know Aus is hosting an armour detachment.
F-15s will get back in time. How long does it take to fly SQ from Singapore to US? The F-15s will be much faster. And we just upgraded them, any evidence to show they are getting non-flightworthy?
Originally posted by amanda.lu862:Depends if they can get home in time. and if they are still up to date--why did one crash in Libya?
Same with the tanks supposedly kept in Taiwan
The US F-15Es were bought in the 80s and early 90s. Even the typhoon, introduced this decade, had a major crash last August and required the grounding of several european fleets.
The Singapore F-15SG, which is again a new build, is actually equipped with sub-systems that are superior to existing F-15Es such as the AESA radar (that is now only being retrofit in stages to existing USAF F-15Es).
More than half the F-15SG fleet is now based in Singapore so they are home.
Its about 20 hours flying time to cover the 17-18,000 km journey from the US to Singapore. Anyone who has taken a trip to the US by plane would know that (and generally boeing jetliners fly at ~9XXkm/h or ~500 knots). The F-15SG can carry more fuel than the F-16s.
Originally posted by Underpaid:Think there was a misunderstanding, I meant the US has mothballed it in 2002 and replaced it with the Patriot not us. It still is a good system.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. That explains why RSAF managed to get the EDA excess articles on the Hawk from US.
Link to the Hawk XXI brochure.