RSN capabilities

[Red]

OPSG,

Why dont we tackle this issue categorically as you have so nicely repackaged my preceding post? My posts are based on the premise that RSN ships have a life-span of approximately 30 years.

1) AAM systems

In the next decade and the decade after next, we would plausibly see a resurgent China with a large number of surface combatants and carriers sporting a larger variety of missiles(cruise and super-sonic ones) and fighter jets. The same goes for India though most SEA people consider India to be benign.

None of the SEA nations are potential belligerents. However, the majority would none-the-less build up thier navies(subject to thier own constraints) to ensure that they do not lose too much leverage in thier own backyard. In the far fetched possibility that there is a probability of armed conflict, they would want to a be in a position to pose some form of detterence so as to pre-empt and prevent that conflict from coming to pass.

As such, I feel that it is essential that the next group of RSN ships carry capable AAM systems; the least of which should be the same number and types carried by the Formidables currently or Aster 15/30 combos. The latter consideration would preclude smaller OPVs and involve vessels the size of the Formidables. ST Marine has no problems building those.

Moreover, aircraft carriers pose a potent threat to Singapore. Singapore cannot possibly build carriers but she can build potent and powerful AAW ships which would help the balance of forces in South East Asia and pose a suitable deterrence as well. The advent of high powered super-sonic missiles make it even more desirable to have good AAW platforms. We should ostensibly move the picket fences as far away from the main island of Singapore as possible.

Big ships are nice but I feel that with a little bit of ingenuity, we can fulfil these requirements with frigates; perhaps slightly larger than the Formidables; the reason why I highlighted DCN`s 4000 ton FM400. The latter is about 800 ton heavier than the Formidables but she is more than capable of carrying larger and more powerful sensors with the space to carry more AAMs and SSMs.

 

[Red]

2) I agree that the large number of submarines will be a problem in little South China Sea in the future. We could not afford to build a lot of submarines. However, we can leverage on a number of existing platforms and new ones. Equip all our surface combatants with powerful anti-submarine capabilities whilst maintaining a small fleet of submarines(at least 6).

The Fokker 50s already carry torps but range may be an issue and there is not much space for more weapons and growth. P-80s are nice but huge and they may not be suitable for a littoral environment with thousands of ships where we would need the MPAs to fly low and slow. The Israelis are looking at a new MPA based on Bombadier`s Q400. It is bigger than the Fokker-50s and as such, it can carry more weapons and sensors. It flies further and flies higher with the speed of a jet whilst retaining the flexibility of a turbo-prop aircraft(fly slow and low).

Anti-sub helicopters would be very useful as well. But we would need a moving base to carry them to the places which matter; a helicopter carrier of some sort. It would be better if we replace and sell 1 or 2(to Thailand or the Phillipines) Endurance class ships for 1 or 2 of such ships. A recent German design requires a complement of just 95 men with increased automation.

Closer to home where the waters are shallower, RSN could leverage on sensors and weapons carried by USVs such as the Spartan and Protectors.

These USVs could also be carried by larger ships such as the Formidable and Endurance ships.

As such, I feel the best way to counter the growth of submarines in our region would be a combination of platforms; ships, submarines, MPAs, anti-sub USVs and anti-sub helicopters.

That said, I agree with you that the Victory replacements need a heli-deck for a capable anti-surface/anti-sub mid sized helicopter. I also note that the heli-deck on the Formidables have been extended somewhat and I think this is so that the latter can accomodate a Chinook(*needs qualification). At any rate, this points to a large ship to replace the Victory ships.

 

[Red]

3) Why is BMD important? I can think of three reasons. For one, Singapore is totally vulnerable to such missiles as we have no capability to shoot them down. The issue takes on a larger significance given the tight space Singapore operates in.

Secondly, we need to entertain the possibility that rogue states in future could lob a few missiles in our direction. In addition, it is possible that we could see a few states in our region acquiring such a capability within the next 2-3 decades.

Thirdly, politics, military issues and resources are getting more enmeshed then ever before in South East Asia. Military capability feature a lot in diplomatic tyrsts so you would try and not lose leverage or perceived advantages as much as you can.

I feel that the best systems are ones that are out at sea given Singapore`s land constraints. Further, the latter would be harder to sabotage or track and destroy. Under such circumstances, you would need a ship large enough to carry the requisite sensors and weapons to track and knock out these ballistic missiles. It would also be advantageous in the sense that these ships would function as great ordinary AAW platforms and good BMD platforms when required. You cannot do that with a Formidable sized ship. You can with a ship that is only marginally larger.

 

[Vivendi]

Big ships are nice but I feel that with a little bit of ingenuity, we can fulfil these requirements with frigates; perhaps slightly larger than the Formidables; the reason why I highlighted DCN`s 4000 ton FM400. The latter is about 800 ton heavier than the Formidables but she is more than capable of carrying larger and more powerful sensors with the space to carry more AAMs and SSMs.

Red, OPSSG, thanks for interesting posts. May I ask a silly question:

What is the main limiting factor in "small" frigates like the Formidable: Is it space constraints, weight constraints, or both?

If somebody built a Formidable sized ship in composites instead of steel the empty weight would be reduced dramatically, which should allow for more heavy equipment. However if space and not weight is the limiting factor then of course it would not allow that much added capability.



Vivendi

 

[cm07]

With the Formidables being deemed to be the "nodes" of the RSN's operations, i am not sure if an even bigger combat vessal would be acquired. On the other hand, the LCS-I variant that is currently under study would, in my opinion, be a perfect replacement for the Victory Class corvettes.

One reason for this is of course the lack of fast-pace boats (30 kts more more) with the stepping down of the Victorys. The Formidables and Fearless class patrol boats are in comparison slower. In this case, the LCS-I (should it become reality would be an ideal fit)

The Formidables can be up-armed if the situation required.

Following that, the Fearless class boats themselves would also require replacement. A slightly larger Visby variant(700-1000t) can be considered.

 

[OPSSG]

I have to thank Red for leading me in this discussion and providing links for me to read. I have not responded to his post, as I am still thinking... I'm a bit slow that way.

Red, OPSSG, thanks for interesting posts. May I ask a silly question:

What is the main limiting factor in "small" frigates like the Formidable: Is it space constraints, weight constraints, or both?

In the case of the Formidable class, space (not weight) is the main growth limitation. Though the Formidable class can be further up-armed and is designed for some further growth.

BTW, CM07 good to see you around. Could you also explain more about why you think the Visby class is a good choice as Fearless class replacements?

 

[Red]

With the Formidables being deemed to be the "nodes" of the RSN's operations, i am not sure if an even bigger combat vessal would be acquired. On the other hand, the LCS-I variant that is currently under study would, in my opinion, be a perfect replacement for the Victory Class corvettes.

One reason for this is of course the lack of fast-pace boats (30 kts more more) with the stepping down of the Victorys. The Formidables and Fearless class patrol boats are in comparison slower. In this case, the LCS-I (should it become reality would be an ideal fit)

The Formidables can be up-armed if the situation required.

Following that, the Fearless class boats themselves would also require replacement. A slightly larger Visby variant(700-1000t) can be considered.

This is an interesting topic and I apologize beforehand for having to disagree on some issues.

I would venture to say that there can be many nodes and that some nodes can take precedence over the rest.

The LCS-I are 3000 ton ships(essentially frigates) and slightly smaller than the Formidables(3200 ton). What can the LCS ships provide apart from extra speed? Modular concept? I think the Formidables are modular enough. The extra space visible for growth is telling(though not quite large enough for requisite sensors for BMD and better AAW sensors).

Is the extra speed necessary in a frigate package? If speed is a key requirement, we would already see the latter in current RSN ships. RSN essentially operates in a littoral environment packed with ships. Im not so sure if speed is that important a criteria. I am certain the USN would find it useful given the extent of thier operations.

The LCS-I is an interesting concept. In my opinion, RSN should endeavour and build similar but much smaller ships to replace the Fearless class ships. In that sense, a slightly larger Visby class seems appropriate with a proper hanger for UAVs/VTUAVs .

 

[cm07]

This is an interesting topic and I apologize beforehand for having to disagree on some issues.

I would venture to say that there can be many nodes and that some nodes can take precedence over the rest.

The LCS-I are 3000 ton ships(essentially frigates) and slightly smaller than the Formidables(3200 ton). What can the LCS ships provide apart from extra speed? Modular concept? I think the Formidables are modular enough. The extra space visible for growth is telling(though not quite large enough for requisite sensors for BMD and better AAW sensors).

Is the extra speed necessary in a frigate package? If speed is a key requirement, we would already see the latter in current RSN ships. RSN essentially operates in a littoral environment packed with ships. Im not so sure if speed is that important a criteria. I am certain the USN would find it useful given the extent of thier operations.

The LCS-I is an interesting concept. In my opinion, RSN should endeavour and build similar but much smaller ships to replace the Fearless class ships. In that sense, a slightly larger Visby class seems appropriate with a proper hanger for UAVs/VTUAVs .

The LCS-I is slated to have a new advance radar (EL/M-2248 MF-STAR Naval Multi-Mission Radar) or an SPY-1F as an alternative. Basically it's an AEGIS system. Coupled with MK-41 VLS(SM3), that's the ABM capability, (something that the Formidables are limited via the Aster missiles?) An alternative would be to build new Formidables but with a totally different slotting to make it more task to AAW. Mk-41 VLS with the entire family of missiles + AEGIS.

If the RSN's interested in a larger size warship than the Formidables, then FREMM size ~5800tons frigates would be an option.

Is high-speed only for a long distance travel?

 

[Vivendi]

The LCS-I is slated to have a new advance radar (EL/M-2248 MF-STAR Naval Multi-Mission Radar) or an SPY-1F as an alternative. Basically it's an AEGIS system. Coupled with MK-41 VLS(SM3), that's the ABM capability, (something that the Formidables are limited via the Aster missiles?) An alternative would be to build new Formidables but with a totally different slotting to make it more task to AAW. Mk-41 VLS with the entire family of missiles + AEGIS.

Do you have any reference to the SPY-1F as an option for the LCS-I?

Another interesting radar may be the CEAFAR:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3778074

If the RSN's interested in a larger size warship than the Formidables, then FREMM size ~5800tons frigates would be an option.

I think Australia is looking at basing their frigates on the Spanish F100 Alvaro de Bazan frigates... Norways Nansen class is a slightly smaller version of the Alvaro de Bazan. Perhaps something to consider for Singapore as well?


V

 

[harryriedl]

Do you have any reference to the SPY-1F as an option for the LCS-I?

Another interesting radar may be the CEAFAR:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3778074

I think Australia is looking at basing their frigates on the Spanish F100 Alvaro de Bazan frigates... Norways Nansen class is a slightly smaller version of the Alvaro de Bazan. Perhaps something to consider for Singapore as well?


V

I think their is with the possible buy of the Lockmart LCS where SPY 1F was offered as part of the package along with a decent amount of cells i try to dig it out

 

[Red]

The LCS-I is slated to have a new advance radar (EL/M-2248 MF-STAR Naval Multi-Mission Radar) or an SPY-1F as an alternative. Basically it's an AEGIS system. Coupled with MK-41 VLS(SM3), that's the ABM capability, (something that the Formidables are limited via the Aster missiles?) An alternative would be to build new Formidables but with a totally different slotting to make it more task to AAW. Mk-41 VLS with the entire family of missiles + AEGIS.

If the RSN's interested in a larger size warship than the Formidables, then FREMM size ~5800tons frigates would be an option.

Is high-speed only for a long distance travel?

The MF-Star is essentially a Herakles with planar passive arrays. Correct me if I am wrong? The SPY-IF plus LCS combo sounds neat. But again, that Aegis derivative may not be powerful enough to perform the role of BMD. Similarly, I have doubts as per whether we can incorporate larger sensors like Empar/Sampson/APAR together with suitable volumetric radars on a 3200 ton platform. Again, this lends to the contention that a much larger ship(as compared to the Formidables) is needed.

Also, RSN has already gone down the route of purchasing and deploying Aster missiles. It might be impractical to purchase Standard missiles as such. There is a Aster 30 Block 2 missile in development with ABM capabilities so it might be more practical that we look in that direction.

An AAW Fremm(5000->5000 tons) or AAW FM400(>4000 tons) would be fantastic. RSN would probably build unique varients if the RSN chooses to build them. ST Marine has the capability to build naval ships that size too. The 145 m Endurance class ships which were domestically made weighs >8500tons at full load.

They are not too big and they satisfy current requirements whilst retaining the space for future upgrades. My suggestion is Empar with a capable long range volumetric radar.

 

[OPSSG]

The MF-Star is essentially a Herakles with planar passive arrays. Correct me if I am wrong? The SPY-IF plus LCS combo sounds neat. But again, that Aegis derivative may not be powerful enough to perform the role of BMD. Similarly, I have doubts as per whether we can incorporate larger sensors like Empar/Sampson/APAR together with suitable volumetric radars on a 3200 ton platform. Again, this lends to the contention that a much larger ship(as compared to the Formidables) is needed.

IIRC, the LCS-I radar is not designed for BMD and we need a larger ship (than the Formidable Class) if we are to have BMD capabilities.

Also, RSN has already gone down the route of purchasing and deploying Aster missiles. It might be impractical to purchase Standard missiles as such. There is a Aster 30 Block 2 missile in development with ABM capabilities so it might be more practical that we look in that direction.

Agreed.

An AAW Fremm(5000->5000 tons) or AAW FM400(>4000 tons) would be fantastic. RSN would probably build unique variants if the RSN chooses to build them. ST Marine has the capability to build naval ships that size too. The 145 m Endurance class ships which were domestically made weighs >8500tons at full load.

They are not too big and they satisfy current requirements whilst retaining the space for future upgrades. My suggestion is Empar with a capable long range volumetric radar.

Currently, I'm of the view that the replacement for the Victory class will need:

(i) a bigger heli hanger (hopefully to carry a Seahawk and 1 to 2 Fire Scout class UAVs); and

(ii) a long range volumetric radar.

 

[cm07]

Either way as with all other purchases, let's hope that the next few years, the defence budget is going to go larger considering that there's acquisition plans for all three services

 

[Red]

IIRC, the LCS-I radar is not designed for BMD and we need a larger ship (than the Formidable Class) if we are to have BMD capabilities.

I would like to add a qualifier here. The Victory replacements will, I reckon, be used for 30 or so years. I am not stating that it is a critical requirement right now. It may well be the case in the next 30 years. SAF must sustain suitable platforms which can be utilized/upgraded for BMD. We could not afford to get it wrong and waste billions on newer platforms after having built the Victory replacements. We need to get it right and build suitable platforms that will last RSN another 30 or so years.

Add more Su-30s, newer AShMs, carriers, newer cruise missiles, etc and you will see the benefit of having bigger platforms as replacements for the Victory class ships. The neighbourhood is changing and this is not Europe.

 

[Red]

I think Australia is looking at basing their frigates on the Spanish F100 Alvaro de Bazan frigates... Norways Nansen class is a slightly smaller version of the Alvaro de Bazan. Perhaps something to consider for Singapore as well?

Curious...Is Aegis and SPY-1D/F compatible with Asters? Thanks in advance !!!

 

[Vivendi]

Curious...Is Aegis and SPY-1D/F compatible with Asters? Thanks in advance !!!

Google found the following:

"France, the major opponent of an Aegis software buy, has reportedly been assured of the compatibility of Aegis with its new Aster 90..."
This is from the book "The future of sea power", brought to you by Google books. I do not know why Aster 90 is mentioned specifically, if this may imply that the other Asters are not compatible!?

Also, some people have speculated (in another forum) that perhaps one reason why the UK could not pick Aegis was because of their Asters...



V

 

[swerve]

Google found the following:

"France, the major opponent of an Aegis software buy, has reportedly been assured of the compatibility of Aegis with its new Aster 90..."
This is from the book "The future of sea power", brought to you by Google books. I do not know why Aster 90 is mentioned specifically, if this may imply that the other Asters are not compatible!?

Also, some people have speculated (in another forum) that perhaps one reason why the UK could not pick Aegis was because of their Asters...

V

That book was published in 1990, when Aster was in early development. I wonder if the name Aster 90 was ever used? There's certainly no Aster 90 now.

AFAIK the UK chose Aster & the associated radars (one designed & built in the UK) & control system as one package. It didn't decide to buy Aster, & then realise it couldn't buy Aegis.

 

[malayphil]

The RSN didn't buy any new warship?

What about the U.K. French Frigates and mini-destroyers?

The EUROPEAN naval ships visited South East Asia a few months back it's to sell those older naval ships to ASEAN countries.

 

[LazerLordz]

(ii) While the important trend is towards sensors, our platform choice will impose certain restrictions on our concept of operations. Strong anti-submarine warfare capabilities must be one of them, given the proliferation of submarines in the South China sea. In fact, we seemed to have largely adopted the sensors used by the USN for anti-submarine warfare. They are good teachers. We need to develop a closer relationship with PACOM and increase our interoperability via suitable platform selection. I'm not concerned about immediate regional submarine fleet or their capabilities. They are just too few in number in comparison to the number and the types of submarines fielded by the Northeast Asian countries. Take for example, China's attack submarines sailed on more patrols in 2008 and she has a fleet of more than 50 submarines. Pentagon officials say "Chinese submarines have very impressive capabilities, and their numbers are increasing..."

(iii) If BMD is the critical criteria, we should just be honest about the size of our naval ambitions and just go the way of an American technology infused AAW destroyer and stop toying with frigate or corvette platforms (which would mean not a 1 for 1 replacement). The problem with this sort of ambitions this size is that it will trigger a regional naval arms race. Having said that we are very much a maritime nation with the 5th largest Singapore flagged merchant fleet in the world. Our naval ambitions should reflect our merchant flag ambitions. OTOH, there should be a limit to our naval budget and I don't see the point of trying to replicate aspects of the USN/Australian capabilities given their much larger budgets...

(iv) In this respect, the Israeli LCS purchase is instructive. And we are keen on lean manning, given our country's manpower restraints. I also like the drop in module concept of the US LCS program, where we can insert a mine hunting module or some other mission specific module and in this way become a value added Australian/USN partner in the littoral water zone.

(v)

Speaking of the BMD and related sensor platforms, some of you might remember this.

Singapore, 27 September 2006 - Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd (ST Engineering) today announced that its US shipyard, VT Halter Marine Inc (VT Halter Marine), has secured a US$199m (about $315m) contract for the design and construction of a missile range instrumentation ship (T-AGM(R)) for the US Navy. VT Halter Marine is the US operations of ST Engineering's marine arm, Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd (ST Marine).

This contract is not expected to have any material impact on the consolidated net tangible assets per share and earnings per share of ST Engineering for the current year.

T-AGM(R) is the support platform for the US Navy's Cobra Judy Replacement programme which provides worldwide, high-quality, high-resolution, multi-wavelength radar data. The T-AGM(R) ship will monitor missile launches and collect data which can be used to improve missile efficiency and accuracy. The ship will also monitor strategic arms treaties and support US military weapons test programmes.

The T-AGM(R) mono-hull vessel is being designed in partnership with AMSEC, a US naval design specialist. Construction of 163m x 27m x 16m T-AGM(R) is scheduled to begin in 2008, with delivery planned in the first half of 2010.

"It is an honour for VT Halter Marine to win another project from the US Navy and be its shipyard of choice to design and build the T-AGM(R). This award brings VT Halter Marine's contract wins in September to about US$450m ($715m)." ~ SEE Leong Teck, President, ST Marine

ST Marine

We have the means to build such ships, if the need arises. And interesting point raised on our merchant fleet being the world's 5th largest in terms of flag.

 

[OPSSG]

Thanks for the timely reminder on VT Halter Marine Inc. OTOH, I note that BMD can also be land based, so I'm not sure what direction our Victory Class replacements will take.

I am most worried about the RSN's 9 April 2009 dispatch of RSS Persistence (an Endurance Class vessel) in support of the multinational Combined Task Force 151. I wish the RSS Persistence and all personnel on board, a safe deployment. I'm guessing that ScanEagle will be deployed with the RSS Persistence.

We have the means to build such ships, if the need arises. And interesting point raised on our merchant fleet being the world's 5th largest in terms of flag.

MPA in Singapore are competing neck and neck with the HK ship registry, in certain years, Singapore is the 5th largest in flag nation, in some years, we are the 6th largest in flag nation. Both Singapore and HK are considered reputable flag nations (with sufficient regulations) and to some extent both our reputations as financial centres, our common law systems and our tax friendly approach assist in this preference to flag a ship in Singapore or HK.