Formidable Class Frigate

[Tasman]

Originally Posted by Gambit79
...
Below are the speculation of the RSN inventory within the next 3 years.
1. 18 stealth frigates
2. 12 stealth corvettes
3. 2 LHD
4. 4 LST
5. 6 MCMV
6. 6 SSK Submarines
7. 6 Long Range MPA
8. 24 ASW/ASUW Helicopters
9. 40 LCAC
10. Unspecified number of missile armed USV/UAV and replenishment tankers.

I have to join those who find the speculated fleet just that - speculation. I can see no way, even if the budget was provided, that Singapore could acquire twelve new frigates in a three year period to go with the 6 Formidables which are only now being introduced into service. This sort of growth would challenge well established navies like the RN. Recruiting and training the personnel, would, IMHO, be an impossibility in the time suggested.

The Republic of Singapore Navy in its government website says:

... all the advanced weapons and hardware that the Navy possesses will not be of much use if not for the committed and well-trained professionals that operate them?

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/navy/assets.html

As the navy believes this I can't see that they would attempt an expansion program that could not be adequately manned.

I am a huge admirer of the way in which the Republic of Singapore Navy has grown into a potent high tech force and I am sure it will continue to grow in the future. However, the fleet suggested by Gambit79 could not, IMO, be achieved in ten years, yet alone three.

Cheers

 

[Red]

Below are the speculation of the RSN inventory within the next 3 years.

Repectfully, I think that more or less sums up the context of that post.

Anyway, it is not really so much of a matter of manpower. Singapore is small but not that small and with proper deployment, it is very possible and sustainable. The newer ships also have smaller complements with more autonomation. The Endurance class LPDs, for example, have a crew of 60 men per ship.

The issue is what exactly neccessitates such a large build-up. I think none. I think we will be getting more capable ships and invariably larger ones in the future. But not in the numbers as mentioned by Gambit. So, I have a different view there.

We need the navy to protect the sea-lanes and perhaps participate in coalition efforts in the future. We will definitely need them in some power management and balancing issues in SEA versus greater powers. But we will do that in concert with other SEA nations; and hardly alone.

Personally, I would think it is definitely the case that the Victory class will be replaced by larger vessels; frigate sized combatants like the Formidables or slightly larger ones to accommodate an AAW role. Maybe, an indigeneous design from ST Marine? The Fearless class patrol vessels would probably be replaced by new and larger off-shore patrol vessels. The 4 Endurance class LPDs are relatively new and will be around for a long time to come. We would probably get a squadron of new subs; especially since regional powers have increased thier submarine numbers. There are already reports of our collaboration with the Swedes in this regard. And that would be about it.But all this will probably take a decade(at least)or so of gradual but systematic changes.

I would expect the RSN to worry less about in-shore patrols as the Coast Guard takes more of that role as what is happening now.

Numberwise, I would expect the RSN to maintain the number of surface combatants and not increase it. It may well be lesser vessels but larger and more capable ones.

 

[Tasman]

Anyway, it is not really so much of a matter of manpower. Singapore is small but not that small and with proper deployment, it is very possible and sustainable. The newer ships also have smaller complements with more autonomation. The Endurance class LPDs, for example, have a crew of 60 men per ship.

You make some good points here Red. The low personnel requirement (70) is one of the things that, IMO, makes the Formidable class such a good choice. They provide tremendous capability for a ship operated by a crew of this size.

Personally, I would think it is definitely the case that the Victory class will be replaced by larger vessels; frigate sized combatants like the Formidables or slightly larger ones to accommodate an AAW role. Maybe, an indigeneous design from ST Marine? The Fearless class patrol vessels would probably be replaced by new and larger off-shore patrol vessels. The 4 Endurance class LPDs are relatively new and will be around for a long time to come. We would probably get a squadron of new subs; especially since regional powers have increased thier submarine numbers. There are already reports of our collaboration with the Swedes in this regard. And that would be about it.But all this will probably take a decade(at least)or so of gradual but systematic changes.

This seems a sensible approach. Based on the way that Singapore has been developing the navy I am certain that it will continue to be a high tech force where all units will have the greatest capability possible. Larger units like the Formidables offer far more capability than corvettes and with the use of technology keeping manpower requirements to a minimum it seems logical that Singapore would move to this type of vessel.

It must be an exciting time to be involved with the Republic of Singapore Navy.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

I become more impressed with the Singapore military each time I look at them. And it isn't just their systems but the way they have taken the best of the Euro-Yank complexes, importing the best of our doctrine and training, honing it in 1st world exercises, then finding a way to put their stamp on it. Buying these Formidables is another case in point.

This is a remarkable country. One would be hard put to find a military force put together with more intelligence.

 

[tphuang]

That is exactly what's done by the SPY-1. Multi-function radar is the way of the future, if you have have made even a cursory observation of the trends in naval radars. In future, horizon search, periscope detection etc will all be done in addition to the two tasks you mentioned, all on the same radar.

wow, I really wonder what's the purpose of MK-99 then if SPY-1D is so powerful. You know, DDG-51 have different types of search radars doing different types of searching and tracking.

 

[Red]

I am hardly an expert on radars.

Well, I think the whole thing about multi-function radars is that they are able to perform multiple tasks unlike previous radars. The data transfer rate is higher and I think the newer design confers a greater flexibility in using, managing and projecting the radar beams.That explains why phased array radars can do so many things at once.

However, that does not necessarily mean ships will not have other supportive sensors on board or redundant systems. It does seem to be the case that for multi-mission ships like the Fremms, Formidables, etc it would be more than sufficient to have radars like the Herakles, Empar, etc. While dedicated AAW ships(minus the Aegis design) seem to be generally equipped with volume search radars for greater range in addition to the main phased array radars. To me that is hardly surprising for a ship meant to control the air in a very large theater of operation. But that does not mean a ship like the Fremm is unable to use longer range missile like the Aster-30. The search and tracking radius is still large and the radar she carries is up to the task.

 

[Transient]

wow, I really wonder what's the purpose of MK-99 then if SPY-1D is so powerful. You know, DDG-51 have different types of search radars doing different types of searching and tracking.

You really don't understand do you? The SPY-1 combines the role of volume search, target acquisition and missile update into one radar. Mk-99s FCRs are for end game missile guidance only, not for 'data uplink' as you so descibed. The Herakles works the same way, except that there is no need for end game illumination since the Asters are provide their own terminal guidance.

 

[tphuang]

You really don't understand do you? The SPY-1 combines the role of volume search, target acquisition and missile update into one radar. Mk-99s FCRs are for end game missile guidance only, not for 'data uplink' as you so descibed. The Herakles works the same way, except that there is no need for end game illumination since the Asters are provide their own terminal guidance.

AB also have other radar doing volume search. The idea is you want a 2D radar with lower frequency and longer range doing volume search. And then a 3D radar with higher frequency (like in S-band) doing the target acquisition. (like SMART-L/APAR combination).

Now in the case of Aster and Herakles, you basically have the following:
a missile that needs update every second + radar on S-Band (which works the best with 2-3 second update). So, you have target update every 2-3 seconds and then you have to do missile update every second. Not exactly ideal if you ask me.

And then you got a humongous radar like Herakles sitting really low, because it would get too top heavy otherwise. And then due to its lower position, you don't detect the sea skimming missiles as fast for obvious reasons. Notice how the lighter radar like Sampson and EMPAR are all on the top of the ship?

So, by combining multiple functionality into, now you have this overweight radar that have to situate lower and also not have the fresh targetting data everytime you update the missile.

 

[Transient]

AB also have other radar doing volume search.

No it doesn't.

The idea is you want a 2D radar with lower frequency and longer range doing volume search. And then a 3D radar with higher frequency (like in S-band) doing the target acquisition.

That's true. Volume search is tough to integrate with other functions of the MFR, hence on the DD(X) it is a separate radar sharing the same processor. That said, most other functions, especially the two you mentioned, can and is already integrated on the same radar.

Now in the case of Aster and Herakles, you basically have the following:
a missile that needs update every second + radar on S-Band (which works the best with 2-3 second update). So, you have target update every 2-3 seconds and then you have to do missile update every second. Not exactly ideal if you ask me.

And then you got a humongous radar like Herakles sitting really low, because it would get too top heavy otherwise. And then due to its lower position, you don't detect the sea skimming missiles as fast for obvious reasons. Notice how the lighter radar like Sampson and EMPAR are all on the top of the ship?

So, by combining multiple functionality into, now you have this overweight radar that have to situate lower and also not have the fresh targetting data everytime you update the missile.

Now you come up with how to best define 'ideal'. Is having a different radar for each task ideal? One - having a different radar for each task means a very real problem of EM saturation. This means that the radars would have to have more separation to solve the problem, meaning that a larger vessel would be required. Another problem is that having that many radars on deck would cause havoc to the ship's LO signature. Is that ideal?

Just because a radar sits lower doesn't mean everything. Data refresh rate means just as much. By the way, you do know that Sampson and EMPAR both happen to be a MFRs.... do you? Which kind of makes your earlier statements look 'off'.

 

[Red]

And then you got a humongous radar like Herakles sitting really low, because it would get too top heavy otherwise. And then due to its lower position, you don't detect the sea skimming missiles as fast for obvious reasons. Notice how the lighter radar like Sampson and EMPAR are all on the top of the ship?

The Herakles on the Formidable does in fact sit on a raised pedestal which is placed on top of a very low stealthy bridge super-structure. That sets it apart from the bridge. The same can be said of the French FREMM.The APARs on the De Zeven Provincien Class and F124 are not as high as the Sampson either. Anyway, they are not the same radars. So, I dont think we will be able to simply compare them just by where they are placed.

Suffice it to say, ship-borne sensors are built clearly in tandem with the design of the ship. That is to say they are designed to maximise the use of the sensors on board. An example is the Aegis system. So, it is pointless to discuss how potent(or not)they are without looking holistically at the design of the ship and knowing a lot about the design specifications of the sensors and the ship which carries them. We will never really know these details. What we do know are the capabilities released to the media.

 

[tphuang]

No it doesn't.

There is also AN/SPS-67 that does searching of low targets. SPY-1D is not going alone.

That's true. Volume search is tough to integrate with other functions of the MFR, hence on the DD(X) it is a separate radar sharing the same processor. That said, most other functions, especially the two you mentioned, can and is already integrated on the same radar.

you want to have radars scanning on different bands, there are inheritant advantages to this. Certain objects are more easily identifiable at certain bands.

Now you come up with how to best define 'ideal'. Is having a different radar for each task ideal? One - having a different radar for each task means a very real problem of EM saturation. This means that the radars would have to have more separation to solve the problem, meaning that a larger vessel would be required. Another problem is that having that many radars on deck would cause havoc to the ship's LO signature. Is that ideal?

having 3 radar emitting 200 kW, 100 kW and 50 kw of power vs 1 radar emitting 600 kw. As for separation, that is actually a legitimate problem, but it can be addressed. Take a look at Sov, it's got like a billion different radars.

Just because a radar sits lower doesn't mean everything. Data refresh rate means just as much. By the way, you do know that Sampson and EMPAR both happen to be a MFRs.... do you? Which kind of makes your earlier statements look 'off'.

They can be MFR, but the point is that it's better to have volume search rater that operate at lower frequency, can achieve similar range with much less size and power. I'm not saying Herakles can't work, but rather it would work better paired up with other radar. And due to its weight, situating lower than other radar gives it less reaction time than higher situated radar.

 

[Red]

They can be MFR, but the point is that it's better to have volume search rater that operate at lower frequency, can achieve similar range with much less size and power. I'm not saying Herakles can't work, but rather it would work better paired up with other radar.

The Herakles can be paired up with another radar. But in the case, of the FREMM or Herakles, that is not necessary given the roles they are supposed to play.

And due to its weight, situating lower than other radar gives it less reaction time than higher situated radar.

The Sampson radar is a far bigger and better radar than the Herakles. I dont think it is even remotely certain that if we put it higher, there will be a stability issue. One would think that the Horizons and Darings could be suffering from that problem. However, that is not the case.

Let alone the potency of the Herakles radar at its current height; which is higher than the low superstructure of the Formidable at any rate minus the mast behind. As I have explained, it is really a sub-set of the design and specifications of the ship itself and the radar as well. We will never really know the actual rates of combination. However, you would design it to maximise its utility wherever it is placed.

Of course, the faster data processing rates matters as well. Faster than normal radars.

Certain objects are more easily identifiable at certain bands.

I am interested to know why this is the case and how it relates to naval radars seeing as such they mainly operate on 1 band. The Seapar, for example, operates in the I-band. Meanwhile, the Arable operates in the X-band. And If im not wrong, the Empar operates in the C(G)-band. Thank You

 

[Gambit79]

RSN Developments


Hey dudes!Many thanks for your replies.
Well, as I mentioned it just a speculation.Possibly in the next 5-6 years.
I'm unsure if all the listed vessels will be procured but there is a high possibility for RSN to have 12-18 stealth frigates.Perhaps 12 missile armed Unmanned Surface Vessels, plus 2 more MVMV, 2 LHD and definitely up to 4 new generation SSK to complement the 2 Vestergotland upgraded SSK that were purchased from Sweden.Additional S70B ASW/ASUW helicopter is a definite.That includes long range MPA.
Herakles is a phased array radar.She's definitely technologically advanced.
The PAAMS of Aster15/30 will definitely be installed in Formidable class frigates.
The RSN will not and never rival China,India or Japan in terms of numbers but her technological and sophiscated weapon sysytems of her vessels will be on par, if not better.
MINDEF/DSO are currently evaluating Aster 30(France-Max Effective Range up to 120km), MEADS(Germany-MER up to 200km),Arrow 2(Israel-MER up to 120km)and S300(Russia-MER up to 300km) anti ballistic missile system for evaluation.There is also plans to procure more SHORADS/VSHORADS surface-to-air missile sysytem.
There is one policy that Singapore practises.The relatively newer 11 NGPV and not corvettes can always be sold to other navies at lower cost or donated to other countries in the region in exchange of extensive military training area throughout each year.
Let's review the policy that RSAF has adopted.
In 1985 RSAF procured 8 F-16A/B fighter aircraft and it was delivered in 1988.Unfortunately, one of the aircraft had a training mishap in 1990.
The 7 F-16A/B were upgraded to 'Falcon One' standard and were donated to Royal Thai AF in December 2004 for an extensive training detachments for RSAF fighter squadrons to RTAF air base up to 10 detachments in one year.
There is a possibility for the RSN to adopt similar policy.

Best Regards.

 

[Red]

You are not being realistic. And some of the things you have added is more speculation as well. In fact, I doubt you are from Singapore and your posts are made out of spite than any real intent to discuss anything meaningfully. I hope the administrators of this great site will look into this.

 

[Tasman]

Hey dudes!Many thanks for your replies.
Well, as I mentioned it just a speculation.Possibly in the next 5-6 years.
I'm unsure if all the listed vessels will be procured but there is a high possibility for RSN to have 12-18 stealth frigates.Perhaps 12 missile armed Unmanned Surface Vessels, plus 2 more MVMV, 2 LHD and definitely up to 4 new generation SSK to complement the 2 Vestergotland upgraded SSK that were purchased from Sweden.Additional S70B ASW/ASUW helicopter is a definite.That includes long range MPA.
Herakles is a phased array radar.She's definitely technologically advanced.
The PAAMS of Aster15/30 will definitely be installed in Formidable class frigates.
The RSN will not and never rival China,India or Japan in terms of numbers but her technological and sophiscated weapon sysytems of her vessels will be on par, if not better.
MINDEF/DSO are currently evaluating Aster 30(France-Max Effective Range up to 120km), MEADS(Germany-MER up to 200km),Arrow 2(Israel-MER up to 120km)and S300(Russia-MER up to 300km) anti ballistic missile system for evaluation.There is also plans to procure more SHORADS/VSHORADS surface-to-air missile sysytem.
There is one policy that Singapore practises.The relatively newer 11 NGPV and not corvettes can always be sold to other navies at lower cost or donated to other countries in the region in exchange of extensive military training area throughout each year.
Let's review the policy that RSAF has adopted.
In 1985 RSAF procured 8 F-16A/B fighter aircraft and it was delivered in 1988.Unfortunately, one of the aircraft had a training mishap in 1990.
The 7 F-16A/B were upgraded to 'Falcon One' standard and were donated to Royal Thai AF in December 2004 for an extensive training detachments for RSAF fighter squadrons to RTAF air base up to 10 detachments in one year.
There is a possibility for the RSN to adopt similar policy.

Best Regards.

Hmmm... I'm glad that you have confirmed that your predicted fleet is just speculation as it was, IMO, totally unrealistic. I do agree with you though that the Singapore Navy is likely to continue to be a technically proficient fleet and I see the Formidables as a first step in a move to a navy with larger, more powerful vessels.

Singapore already exercises extensively with other regional navies but I can't see that the navy has the same needs as the air force to permanently base or detach aircraft for long periods overseas for training. In the case of the air force this is necessary because of the crowded air space over Singapore which would make realistic training extremely difficult. The navy has a base that was once considered to be the main base East of Suez, for the RN in its heyday. With frigates like the Formidable class the navy should, I think, be able to operate from its own bases without the need to base units overseas.

Cheers

 

[Transient]

There is also AN/SPS-67 that does searching of low targets. SPY-1D is not going alone.

Playing shift the goalposts, are you? First you said the AB had another radar for VS. Having been disproved, now you go about saying that it does searching of low altitude targets, something which I have never denied. Notice my initial response was to your suggestion that combining "air search and target data uplink to missiles into one radar" was less than ideal.

you want to have radars scanning on different bands, there are inheritant advantages to this. Certain objects are more easily identifiable at certain bands.

There are advantages, but there are disadvantages as well, as I have illustrated. And hence it cannot be ascertained that going down such a route is necessarily ideal as you postulated.

having 3 radar emitting 200 kW, 100 kW and 50 kw of power vs 1 radar emitting 600 kw. As for separation, that is actually a legitimate problem, but it can be addressed. Take a look at Sov, it's got like a billion different radars.

And the Sov has what displacement again? At what cost?

They can be MFR, but the point is that it's better to have volume search rater that operate at lower frequency, can achieve similar range with much less size and power. I'm not saying Herakles can't work, but rather it would work better paired up with other radar. And due to its weight, situating lower than other radar gives it less reaction time than higher situated radar.

Of course with a dedicated VSR it would be more capable. Then what impact will that have on the ship? It's cost? If it ends up that instead of 6 ships only 4 or 5 ships can be afforded as a result of the changes when the requirement is for 6 ships, is that ideal? Hmm?

 

[tphuang]

Playing shift the goalposts, are you? First you said the AB had another radar for VS. Having been disproved, now you go about saying that it does searching of low altitude targets, something which I have never denied. Notice my initial response was to your suggestion that combining "air search and target data uplink to missiles into one radar" was less than ideal.

alright, so I was wrong about AB having a separate volume search radar. However, AB does have the advantage of operating in the USN Aegis environment where it gets advanced targetting data from AWACS, other ships in the accompanying fleet. Navies with just 4 or 5 air defense ships don't have the same luxury. As for the air search and target data uplink into one radar is less than ideal, so you really think that having a radar that operates on S-band with updates every 2-3 seconds passing target information to the missile every second is ideal?

There are advantages, but there are disadvantages as well, as I have illustrated. And hence it cannot be ascertained that going down such a route is necessarily ideal as you postulated.

And the Sov has what displacement again? At what cost?

so you think sov is big, well then, Talwar class has sensors operating on different band too.

Of course with a dedicated VSR it would be more capable. Then what impact will that have on the ship? It's cost? If it ends up that instead of 6 ships only 4 or 5 ships can be afforded as a result of the changes when the requirement is for 6 ships, is that ideal? Hmm?

get a cheaper target tracking radar, add a VSR. Take a look at the Yagi radar on 052C, how much do you think that could possibly have cost? Yet, it serves a pretty important role of providing early detection of lo-observable objects.

 

[Rich]

Not to get sidetracked but those of you with Google Earth take a good look at the main Iranian naval base at Bandar Abbas and then check out the two Singaporean navy bases at Tuas and Changi. Then tell me what you see.

Here's what I see. The Iranian ships are covered in rust and dirt as are the docks. Many of the Iranian ships are in dry dock or in such poor condition they cant be in good enough shape to operate. The support facilities, what there is, looks just as old and dilapidated as the ships. There is crap strewn all over the place and it looks like nobody has ever trimmed the bush's around the place. I see no quality of life facilities for the sailors, other then a Mosque. The place looks like an environmental nightmare from all the oil spills. And this is the premiere naval base for the Iranian navy?

Now go to the Singaporean naval bases. Go to Tuas and try to find one speck of rust on those corvettes, gun boats, LHDs, and mine warfare boats. Some of them are every bit as old as the Iranian ships but the Singaporean ones are spotless and in good order. As are the docks and support facilities. The base itself look how well ordered it looks. The grass is cut, hedges are trimmed, barracks are in good order. There is a ball field, swimming pool, tennis courts...ect Overall you get an impression those ships are ready to go into action quickly should they need them. Overall you get the impression of a professional, 1st world, naval power that is on the exact opposite end of the spectrum as the Iranian navy is. A navy and military/industrial complex capable of building 5 of its own Formidable class frigates, and then, using all 6 in a highly efficient manner.

This is the kinda thing I'm talking about when I refer to Google Earth. When you fly around Singapore in it you get the impression of a highly capable, professional fighting force at a high state of readiness. I wasnt able to find one F-16 in it. They have all of them in hangars and doubtless ready for combat.

So you end up asking yourself, how can a little nation like Singapore do it and not a huge, oil rich, nation like Iran?

 

[Transient]

alright, so I was wrong about AB having a separate volume search radar. However, AB does have the advantage of operating in the USN Aegis environment where it gets advanced targetting data from AWACS, other ships in the accompanying fleet.

As does the RSN which relies on its Fokker 50s and E-2Cs for general situational awareness.

As for the air search and target data uplink into one radar is less than ideal, so you really think that having a radar that operates on S-band with updates every 2-3 seconds passing target information to the missile every second is ideal?

The Herakles rotates at 60RPM, and is electronically steerable for enhanced revisit rates at directions of interest. So where did you get the idea that updates are only available every 2-3 seconds? In fact, the Herakles is capable of forming up to 4 beams.

so you think sov is big, well then, Talwar class has sensors operating on different band too.

You just love to contradict yourself, don't you? Look at the Talwar class with its problems of signal interference on its Shtil system. That proves exactly my point. http://www.indiadefence.com/TwoTs.htm

get a cheaper target tracking radar, add a VSR. Take a look at the Yagi radar on 052C, how much do you think that could possibly have cost? Yet, it serves a pretty important role of providing early detection of lo-observable objects.

And how do you know how that change would impact on overall system capability? You sure that the sacrifices in capability in the target acquisition radar and FCR would bring about better overall performance? If you're not, how can you say that's ideal? I remind you that the 052C is a 7000 ton displacement destroyer, and the phased array radar on board also combines "air search and target data uplink to missiles into one radar". So is it as you say, 'less than ideal'?

 

[Rich]

Again, not to get sidetracked, but heres what I was talking about. 1st is the main Iranian naval base at Bandar Abbas http://www.mediamax.com/rich46yo/Hosted/Bandar Abbas-2-1.jpg

Here is the Singaporean base at Tuas http://www.mediamax.com/rich46yo/Hosted/Tuas-2.jpg

For comparison. The naval base at Tuas could just as easily be Brit., Yank, or other 1st world navy.