from Asian Military Review May 2009

Good article. Thanks. Would be nice if someone actually posts their source for Formidable's Aster-30s.

Impact of sabotage on sub-sea cables are not as dire as it seems. Its quite quick and easy to re-lay cables (cableships on standby) + connectivity allows re-rout of signals through other cables (and the network is continually growing). Also, ocean floor is not exactly accessible for the average joe to reach.

Finally, cables are normally connecting 2 or more countries. Its unlikely to be just 1 country that will be p*ssed off if someone tries to cut any undersea cables.

Thanks for the article. It's a good summary of everything, and the tantalising bit abt the Aster platforms again. :lol:

equally exciting is the info abt the S-100 camcopters and the possibility of LCAC-type vessels...

I like it when they say we're trailblazing in the field of USV usage... B) B)

was just thinking, whats the chances if terrorists attempted to sink a ship over one such cable in the hope of cutting it...? :ph43r: how will it impact recovery?

Not sure how one can cut an undersea cable by sinking a ship.

But if one sinks a cableship, it shouldn't cut any cables cos cableships only do repair of cables. If one sinks all the cableships that SG has, I'm sure one can rent other cableships from other cable operators.

In many cases, cables are also buried under seabed. Not so easy to find and dig up either.

http://www.aseancableship.com/html/ourresources/sub1.html

http://www.aseancableship.com/html/ourresources/sub1.html

Tankers are far juicier and easier targets for terrorists.

usually cables are cut b either undersea earthquake or by some anchors who are "dragging the sea bed" unsuspectingly....most telcos have backup since every year, we would expect to see some anchors and earthquake that damages the cables...the key risk is not in the cutting of cables that disrupt the traffic....special security should be given to the receiving station in each country since you can have many cables but they all end up in one receivieng station...the station down....all the cables are down...

actually there are quite a few landing stations.

ya...i remember last time SMW3 and SMW4 down...alot of ppl work over weekend to reroute traffic...shit work man!

If I'm not wrong, all stations are restricted area.

of course!

actually what I was thinking of when I said sinking a ship to cut it was smth a bit more dramatic...say hijacked tanker/container vessel/pretty big ship, forced to "park" over a undersea cable and then forcefully made to sink so that the wreckage will not only cut the cable upon impacting the bottom but also hamper repair efforts...

...but then again, if its solution is just rerouting the cables, this shouldn't be more than an annoyance right?

frankly it is easier to just drag an anchor over the seabed.

KLS review has reported in Chinese that Singapore Technologies Marine (ST Marine) had unveiled 2 new naval patrol vessel designs and 1 new naval auxiliary vessel design via a video shown at their booth in IMDEX 2009. I have provided a limited English translation/summary of the 2 articles below:

(i) a 60 metre patrol vessel that holds up to 58 crew, with an endurance of 14 days. This new Patrol Vessel is equipped with a crane to facilitate the launch of up to 4 USVs;

(ii) a 85 metre Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) design that that holds 90-100 crew, with an endurance of 20 days. This new OPV has a helicopter landing pad but no hanger. The bridge allows for all round visibility and the vessel has inherited the clean lines present in the 'Formidable' Class frigates; and

(iii) a 158.62 metre Ropax naval auxiliary vessel design based on commercial design standards with accommodation for up to 230 personnel. This new Ropax is a fleet support vessel can conduct refueling at sea with space for cargo containers. It is equipped with a well dock in the stern, a helicopter hanger for at least 4 helicopters and a vehicle deck that can be converted to hold up to 1,000 people and/or possible hospital facilities, if deployed for disaster relief missions.

Click on the link provided for the patrol vessel, the OPV and the second link on the Ropax naval auxiliary vessel. Please note that the 3 vessel designs are currently only design concepts and there is nothing earth shattering in their designs. However, these new designs does give an indication of the concerns of the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN). In particular, if a Ropax naval auxiliary vessel is acquired, the RSN would have true blue water deployment capabilities.

Yeap, we saw all 3 mockup models of the above mentioned vessels at IMDEX09

Thanks for the confirmation. I also note that the noisy lion has copied bits of information on the same post from DT and is also attempting to make his usual own analysis.

especially the ROPAX model is very eyecatching in civilian colours.

ignore this guy man....his brain is abit off-centre.....i used to contribute stuff there but not anymore since i notice they attract strange breed of people, who is "socially challenge".... :D

hah! the noisy lion and his unique analysis...great entertainment tho...

i was giving the links a second look and a few qns popped into mind...for the patrol vessel, I'm quite impressed with the 4 USV loadout...but given the roles of the PV, isn't 4 USVs a bit of an overkill? why not just one or two? (btw if I'm not wrong the article mentions fast craft, but not USV)

as for the OPV correct me if i'm wrong but it doesn't it look like it has storage space for the chopper...would this mean exposing the chopper to high seas after landing?

probably the OPV is not meant to have an organic helo but a deck to enable helo ops.

^^^thanks spiderweb6969 and FIVE-TWO for the replies. I don't post in the old milnuts, as there are too many strange people there for me to bother (especially since I don't understand what they mean half the time with their posts). BTW, I like the eyecatching in civilian colours of the ROPAX model too.

1. Yup, I did not make a direct literal translation (as it does not make much sense - to carry 4 Asset teams on 1 patrol boat). The article in Chinese actually mentions 4 boats/fast craft and I interpreted the article to mean that the patrol boat carries 4 USVs.

2. Logically, for the patrol vessel to carry so many, it has to be mostly USVs for it makes sense.

(i) For anti-submarine operations and multi-static sonar operations (the best way to detect submarines in shallow waters), we need at least 2 or more active sonar sources. For USV ops, it is attractive to have the active sonar sources mounted on sources remote from the patrol boat (as it is in broadcast mode) and deployed at suspected submarine locations - so you don't have to use your patrol boat to ping and giving away the patrol boat's exact location to the submarine being hunted - safer for the crew on the patrol boat (In army terms, a S2 can never have too many OPs).

(ii) You would place 1 or 2 USVs with torpedoes at strategic locations to watch choke points - this can be separate from the dipping sonars. You can also use USVs for mine hunting. So, IMHO, the more USVs the merrier.

(iii) You could also want to employ another 1 or 2 USVs for force protection - and these can operate at the same time as on going anti-submarine operations. These force protection USVs with their Spike-ER launchers can also provide over watch cover (or as decoys) for landing operations. The 'Mexicans' also use them for ship to shore stand off strike - as the Red team has shore based anti-ship missiles.

3. My guess is that the OPV is a helicopter lily pad - to refuel and relaunch. This will extend the range of our helicopters as they can refuel with the OPVs. OR it could be that ST Marine are trying to sell the OPV concept to the Sultan of Brunei (remember they rejected their British built ships) - so that he can visit his navy ships any time?? More seriously, OPVs operate further out than patrol boats - so it is good to have a landing pad to evacuate injured sailors (if they are rescued by the OPV) or for vertical replenishment - that's where the ROPAX naval auxiliary vessel and its ability to hold 4 helicopters will be useful.

hmm...4 USVs...lessons learnt from Persian Gulf being applied to the patrol vessels? with the loadout mentioned, this would give the patrol craft a lot of teeth...tho I was thinking that maybe it might not be all 4 USVs, but possibly with one being a standard RHIB so that its possible for the PV to conduct boarding ops if needed? a great way to put piracy at bay I feel B)

wrt the OPVs...makes sense...damn, why didn't it strike me earlier? this would give the RSN a lot more reach and flexibility...

ok, sorry, one more noob question: the space just aft of the bridge...is it intentionally empty to suggest room for installing eqpt (not likely, I feel), or is there something already installed that I can't see clearly (i.e. Aster 15/30 or Barak vertical launch tubes with thier hatches flush to the deck?) or there is some other purpose in the design?

thanks a lot for the answers! sorry, I'm a navy noob here :P

1. Yes, the proposed patrol vessel design could be carrying 3 USVs and 1 RHIB (or any mix of USV/RHIB) - sorry about being lazy in my prior description and just calling it 4 USVs.

2. IIRC, I think CJ dropped hints about a Ropax naval auxiliary vessel before in another thread (I can't remember which thread now).

3. The Ropax (technically is a civilian vessel):

(i) It will extend range and endurance of the Formidable Class too, which makes it a great force multiplier for the RSN in conducting high intensity operations. The faster you sail the sooner you need to refuel and at war time footing, you want to move fast (so that the diesel submarines have a harder time targeting your ships) and makes locating your strike fleet that much harder.

(ii) It will enable RSN to centralise higher level helicopter/FCEP/USV maintenance activity at sea on the Ropax, providing the RSN with a 'base at sea'.

(iii) It will enable RSN to conduct more HADR operations, as sending a civilian vessel into another country's territorial waters is less sensitive (as it is not a fighting ship). Providing aid to Myanmar for their next typhoon cycle comes to mind. This will increase ASEAN's leverage with that regime. The RSN (via ST Marine) can even spot charter the Ropax (during peace time), reducing the cost of ownership from the RSN.

4. Hard to talk about deck penetration (Aster 15/30 or Barak vertical launch tubes) from a scale model/video. Take a look at the Sylver launcher brochure (for the A35 to A70 range), to give you an idea of deck penetration issues. When Mindef says that the Formidable class has room for growth - do they more missile tubes or more deck penetration or both?

No need Scalp or Tomahawks which are very exp. NLOS-LS missiles = next gen and designed to be cheaper, I think. Same thing, I'm guessing, why RSAF didn't get SLAM-ER or JASSM for the F-15s though ROKAF got the former and the latter has been integrated into F-15s.

The last I read, F-15SG is already configured to fire or launch all conventional weapons available in US arsenal. SLAM-ER and JASSM is self-propelled missile. Possessing such weapon is still a political sensitive issue in SEA region, especially towards the north and south. Also, the threat scenario for the foreseeable future do not give our air force good reasons to acquire such capability.

hmm, but won't it be an overkill for an OPV to have SCALP or Tomahawks on them? I'm not familiar with the role of an OPV but I somehow feel there might be a mismatch in weaponry...(yes, I shouldn't have mentioned the Asters :ph43r: )

Not for the OPVs - for the Formidable Class and the successor to the Victory Class (when the time comes to replace them). Sorry about the mis-direct, the moment you mention Asters - I assumed we were talking about the 1st flotilla. The patrol vessel class will continue to report to COSCOM, which are for enforcement duties and not the sharp end of our navy weapons platforms.

BTW, I agree with diCam on the political sensitive issue of acquiring such self-propelled missiles in SEA region.

However, at some point Pakistan, China or India will want to sell their long range missiles that they have developed or are developing (be it their Long range SAMs or anti-ship to other ASEAN countries). Somebody (Malaysia / Indonesia / Thailand) in SEA will acquire such weapons and at that time, RSN will need for our 1st flotilla ships (which must last at least 30 years) to cater for this mission growth.

I will say no present need, rather than no need. NLOS-LS missiles are good for landing and shore fire support from the sea for patrol class vessels. No need to risk the higher value 1st flotilla ships for shore bombardment, if we can use patrol class vessels. The 1st flotilla ships sit further out and will provide anti-ship missile cover (with their Asters or such other missiles) for the patrol class vessels.

The life-span for the Formidable Class is at least 30 years. This means the RSN's planners have to cater to changing needs. See my above post to bdique on possible new naval threats.

I agree that there is no present need for self-propelled precision guided missile. If the need arises the requirement can be fulfilled almost immediately by just placing order with the manufacturer, assuming our government get pass the Missile Technology Control Regime roadblock.

I think our navy had long moved away from ship-to-shore bombardment role. Looking at the geographical landscape of the immediate region and the direction that SAF is moving into, I'm of view that our armed force is seeking to develop deep and precise strike capability. That includes hitting targets at a stand-off range of about 150~200km.

By the way, do you think we are facing the same threats like what the South Koreans do?

If we are in that situation, SAF will probably has those weapons in our arsenal already.

Good point. No MTCR restriction for SLAM-ER's range is <300km. JASSM has a range over 200nm so probably caught. JSOW-ER supposed to max it at just <300km but that's not on offer yet.

RSAF now does have JSOW.

Anti-ship missiles will generallys exceed LR-SAMs' range due to kinematic energy advantage so I don't think LR-SAMs will be an issue esp when cost is factored in. Vietnam acquiring S-300s hasn't been a big deal.

1st line of defence for navy will always be fighters. Shipborne SAMs will invariably end up gearing towards a leaker strategy even with SM-6s. Too much risk and history to make the same mistake with lack of air cover.

I don't think deep strike capability is a feature that RSAF is seeking but definitely precision is the trend. Unlike Israel, RSAF's policy is passive towards its neighbours ie non-provocative actions. Having said that, F-16s and F-15s are both capable of deep strike as IDF has demonstrated (as will the F-35 later) but those are features that came with the a/c rather than a deliberate decision to adopt.

I think relying on fighters to provide naval CAP, while useful and more mobile, is probably not too wise a permanent solution because it draws away aircraft from other missions that could do with them.

It would be more realistic to consider a broader area air defence coverage organic to the naval component.. IMHO.

diCam, I would agree with you that our threats are not necessarily immediate, geographically speaking.

Have you read MTCR?

JSOW is not self-propelled. It's a glider not a missile. As such this weapon does not come under the control regime.

How do you know there is no MTCR restriction for SLAM-ER and JASSM? The actual range of these weapons are not publicly recognized. It is still a cruise missile and the capability is close to the guidelines of MTCR. US is also known to be sticky with the transfer of cruise missile technology and capability.

Yes, the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is a potential road block. If you are interested in this area, please read about the legal perspective for the sale of the Black Shaheen (a variant of the Storm Shadow/SCALP EG air launched cruise missile) to the UAE despite the presence of MTCR. According to some observers, the MTCR has, thus far, been ineffective at preventing the spread of land attack cruise missiles. BTW, I'm not going to further discuss the legal aspects of the MTCR, as it is not my area of interest/competence.

won't these missiles (Asters, NLOS-LS, SCALP, TacToms) need specialized radars for spotting and fire control? would installing the relevant electronics suite be a cost effective thing? somehow i still feel cruise missiles on an OPV, while it would be really nice to have, and would offer nice tactical advantages, but that would make it lose its primary role of patrol...do pirates only respond to the threat of being obliterated by SSMs? what would neighbouring countries think when such a tough-as-nails ship is patrolling near thier territory/borders? I wouldn't feel comfortable if a pocket-frigate decided to start patrolling near one of the many far flung islands that my hypothetical country has...

sorry, just my 2 cents worth :P

I think you did not see my prior response (that it is not the OPVs that we are talking about any more) and we have gone on to talk about the legal aspects of the MTCR.

BTW, the RSN's harpoon is a over the horizon sea skimming anti-ship missile (and if used against a land target would be considered a cruise missile). It should be no problem equipping a Formidable/OPV with a harpoon missile - with mid-course correction, it just means a ship firing and handing off control of the missile to an air borne targeting source.

Currently the harpoon and the JSOW (a glider) are not within the restrictions in the MTCR; as the US does not want to violate the MTCR. However, I have cited the Black Shaheen sale to UAE to show that other western countries in the MTCR are so keen to sell that they are sometimes willing to bend the MTCR restrictions to make a sale.

is this thing able to carry 2 Leopard 2 to shore?


130 tons Fast Craft Mechanized

not sure if a 130 ton rated craft will carry two Leos, considering the actual combat weight will be pushing very close to the limit.