These are all minor contracts for small number of purchases of gap fillers including that APC with a 105mm turret. My guess is that this is an election boost. Nothing revolutionary at all e.g. the 19070-80 era Type 309 subs. But they are indeed gap filler which ought to bought a long time ago.

How many additional Guardians were bought?

This post has been edited by Mai189: Apr 14 2019, 09:11 AM

Singapore Technologies Engineering Marine introduces the Vanguard 130 frigate/destroyer for Singapore RSN's Multi Role Project Vessel project

This was discussed previously. The MRCV is supposed to be a carrier for large USVs, UAVs, helicopters in addition to having powerful anti-air, anti-surface and sub-surface suite capabilities. This requires a ship much larger than the current Formidables. Design/s released by Singapore's Mindef attest to this:




At Imdex 2019, ST Engineering Marine introduces Vanguard 130 clearly aimed at the MRCV project. (In ST's nomenclature "130" refers to the length of between 130m to 140m. An example is Endurance 140 LPD - the endurance class is 145m long). Vanguard 130 probably displaces 6000-7000 tons at full displacement - destroyer range. Other ships in the same class include Australia's Hobart destroyer and Hunter class heavy frigates.





The first MRCV will be ready by 2025. All 6 MRCVs will be ready by 2030 and the Victory class will be retired.

Other points to note. There are more than 48 to 64 cells for anti air weapons or even surface to surface weapons (SSMS). The ship still seems to carry the deck launched SSMs. The ship seems to be carrying two large USVs in a central cargo/launch by similar to the Type 26:




* Do note ST's designs above are not exactly drawn to scale. But you get the picture when the ship is 130-140m long.

Other Vanguard class ships here:





In other news from Imdex, it is reported that Sg will increase its sub-surface capabilites read: more Type 218SGs on the way. Poseidon P8s have also been seen flying around in SG - possibly undergoing tests for an incoming MPA purchase by RSN.

ST Engineering wins up to USD $1.9 billion contract to build icebreakers for U.S. Navy

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd said on Wednesday it has won a contract worth up to $1.94 billion to build as many as three icebreaker ships for the U.S. Navy.
The U.S. Department of the Navy awarded VT Halter Marine, ST Engineering’s shipbuilding business in Mississippi, a $746 million contract for the detail design and construction of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) polar security cutter, the Singapore-based company said in a statement.

The first ship is due for delivery in 2024, said ST Engineering. It said the contract is worth $1.94 billion, including options for two more vessels with estimated delivery dates of 2025 and 2027.

The United States has two operational icebreakers - the Polar Star, which is more than 42 years old, and the Healy.
ST Engineering shares were up 1.6 percent in morning trade at S$3.82, while the broader market was up 0.2 percent.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-st-engin...y-idUSKCN1S007E

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/23/vt-halter-...uard-icebreaker

Akan datang for Singapore's RSAF - already tested with Aussie F35:

I will view Singapore Technologies Engineering Marine's Vanguard 130 heavy frigate/destroyer as a baseline standard to fit RSN's requirements. I think the final look and design may or may not be this. If you look at Singapore's LMV, there is still some difference when compared to the Fearless OPVs. The baseline Formidable/La Fayette design then was 110metres and about 3000 tons. The final design is about 115metres and 3500 tonnage - it is likely between 3500 tons to 4000 tons now with the new systems and weaponry added to the Formidable class.

It is possible that ST may partner with SAAB or Naval Group to offer a joint design. Interesting times for those doing procurement. Baseline tonnage should be between 5000 to 5500 tonnage. When fully loaded i.e. with all its USVs, UUVs, UAVs, helicopters, etc. it ought to be >6000 tons.

There is an even sleeker Vanguard 130 or is this Vanguard 140:



A typical RSN naval battlegroup in 2030 will be something like this - all networked:

1) 1 Endurance 170 LHD (which is slightly larger than the Dokdo LHD in tonnage-wise)
2) 1 Vanguard class heavy frigate/destroyer
3) 1 Formidable class frigate (which will undergo mid-life upgrade->becomes even more formidable)
4) 1 or 2 Independance class LMVs
5) 1 Invincible class submarine

supported by a MPA; likely the P8 Poseidon.

Who'd know? The tiniest country in South East Asia will be deploying the most powerful navy in the region in terms of firepower, technology and capability.

Remember this is before FPDA - the Aussies and the brits come into the picture.

This post has been edited by Mai189: May 19 2019, 11:34 PM

Good video by Singapore Technologies Engineering Marine of how helicopter/s and Unmanned Surface Vessels (USV), Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) works when deployed by a RSN navy ship (imagine this is the MRCV):

It is the next phase of naval combat people.. and Singapore is pushing the boundaries by implementing it in the Asia Pacific region. Btw, those stealthy USVs can be loaded with Spike NLOS to take out frigates and even destroyers...or at least get mission kills!

All the USV need to do is do a mission kill...esp w r t to a critical ship system..see what damage a minior collision can do a AB destroyer forcing it to back to port. And we are talking about an anti tank round here.

Why cant a spike or hell fire designed to take out MBTs cause a similar degree of damage? As shared, they do not need to sink a ship but damage it enough so as to kill the mission. Well timed shots at key locations e.g. bridge, sensors, engines etc.can terminate the mission or even leave the ship vulnerable to more attacks.

If spikes and hell fires are already popping attack boats <30m in size, I dont see how such missiles are not a significant threat to naval warships esp.when carried by small and stealthy USVs. Navies already consider rpgs a grave threat. A marine spike nlos can be fired 25-30 km away.

To my mind, the future main threat to a naval ship lies not in SSMs but Uav or USV swarms that are hard to detect from far and hard to knock out when close or at least before they shoot their warload at a naval ship.

The USVs carried by the MRCV are at least 16 metres (Venus USV) at least with high sea states and much bigger than a littoral USV like the Protector class - at least 4 Spikes.

This post has been edited by Mai189: May 21 2019, 08:12 PM

How many ships in the region let alone the RMN are equipped with SeaRam? At any rate, I have never read RAM missile shooting down a missile as tiny as an atgm i.e. slightly larger than an artillery shell. Have you?

In the first place, it will not be easy to locate a tiny stealthy USV esp. in congested waters amongst bigger ships.

Have you even considered what a hole or ensuing damage an atgm can do to a thin hulled naval ship vis a vis a 60 plus ton tank that it will tear apart from within? Even <25 mm cannons can punch holes in the skin of most naval ships.

How many naval warship are there in the region that can withstand the pummeling of more than even 1 atgm and still fight?

I was referring to a future naval threat in fact even aerial threat in a generic sense when i referenced uav swarm. In fact, what is to stop a country with such tech from doing so since it can be very effective. Singapore, China and the US are pursuing long range persistent USVs that can stay in water for weeks.

No. To ignore such assymeteric new threats to naval ships is foolhardy. Having such a capability from USVs is a means to an end but certainly deadly when used in the right context.
.

No. I am talking about the 2 large USVs carried by the MRCV. The MRCC can carry more depending on its final capacity.

Haha Care to show me even phalanx engaging an artillery shell? Yes, it can be used against the USV. But thats difficult to detect when said USV is launching missiles 10 to 30 km away. In the context of our region, you may not be able to distinguish them or see them amongst the clutter of maritime shipping..rcs smaller than a sampan.

I do know not how you can equate a 57mm shell with a atgm even if the atgm even as you say it will punch holes snd thats it...id like to see the size of tbat hole esp when it can tear apart smaller ships e.g. fast attack crafts.

Sure naval ships have damage mitigation measures . But how many ships can carry on the fight with that kind of damage to its super-structure? Id said this numerous times in my preceding posts. You only need a mission kill.

Im pretty sure say..a Lekui class will limp back to port with that kind of hit. Kedah? Not a chance..It will sink or scuttle anything else.

Modern atgms can in fact be configured to selectively hit specific parts of the ship..optical guided. How it is linked to onboard USV systems and the nnothership..im not privy/sure.

Excellent example. The INS Hanit survived given where the warhead landed. The ensuing fires crippled the propulsion system on board the ship, etc. Did not I not prove my point? I said that all that is needed is a mission kill. The INS Hanit has to go back to port and not continue fighting. In a real war scenario, it becomes a sitting duck and unable to fulfil whatever mission that was given to it.

I'm also of the view that a warhead of an anti-tank missile is probably more penetrative.

Here is a real case study of how a Kornet ATGM completely destroyed a 26m naval/coast guard vessel. How does a gaping 26-30m firey inferno looks for a naval ship? Still can fight? It may well sink a Kedah or Lekiu class ship. How about 2 ATGMS? How about 4 ATGMS?



http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/n...ornet-atgm.html

So what if the kedah class is 3 times larger? Can it continue the fight with that kind of blast? I do not knoe how many times i need to iterate this - the objective is to achive a mission kill. If the kedah sinks, it is an added bonus.

And why wont hard to detect 2 USVs not worth an exchange with a large ship? They are supposrd to shoot and scoot! An S-70 may have an higher larger rcs let alone the possible loss of lives. And why cant an S-70 not work with the USVs to take out a target? I know this may seem distant in RMN but many navies in the world are networked for a fight.

Of course it "might" cause critical damage. If it can destroy a 26m patrol boat, why can it not cause a 26m gaping firey hole in a frigate or a Kedah. And that is just one atgm missile. Typically, a USV as large as a Venus 16 can carry 4 or more. And that "might" increases dramatically given the smallish ships (frigates and below) deployed in the region.

My point is that the aim of such tactic is to get a mission kill bar a total kill. I never said that one should not get a total kill. A mission kill can always result in a total kill later. What..you are going to wait for another opportunity when an gap for an attack presents itself before you in a hot war situation? Do not be ridiculous.

You get a better grasp of what I am proposing. It is not about platform versus platform anymore; rather bringing to the fore the entire force of the network. When the Vanguard deploys its USVs, UUVs and helicopters, they will be tied to a network i.e. sensors and shooters. It is not always the case that a harpoon must come from the Vanguard rather it can even be a sequential attack by the USVs and helicopter and/or ship.

No... it is slowly growing list of marine atgms..hellfires, Spike LR, Spike NLOS and now MMP.

A vanguard class will have room for both USVs and helicopter given its size and if it applies the same design it has implemented on the Endurance 140, the USVs can be stored in the hull of the ship. It is not for nothing Mindef's design showed the deployment of helicopter, UUVs, USVs and UAVs.

The blast from a Kornet ATGM proves showcases a blast equal or more than that of a medium calibre cannon say 56mm.


Hmmm..the only naval cannon that can reach 30km is the 127mm cannon and limited by rate of fire. Recent models of ATGMs e.g. Spike LR2 can be fired from more than 5km away - more range than that of a CWIS.

The Pinoy's Spike ER has a range of more than 8km:



Spike NLOS does not even need to be in line of sight....

Has any anti missile missile system shot down a missile the size of an atgm?

Recent Spikes can also receive target data from remote target acquisition systems, such as airborne UAVs/USVs, or remotely operated via networked command and control systems ensuring pin-point accuracy.


Protector USV - 9m

Let us not kid ourselves regarding this threat.