This is the first part of a two part series
of Singapore Surface Navy articles, all drawing heavily on very interesting comments made by
Benjamin. There is also mention of some Singaporean Army and Airforce equipment.
- the Fleet,
- Maritime Security Task Force (MSTF) / Maritime Security (MARSEC) Command
- Maritime Training and Doctrine Command (MTDC)
- Naval Logistics Command (NALCOM)
- Naval Diving Unit (NDU) [which includes special forces] and
- Navy Medical Service
The Republic of Singapore
Navy (RSN) consists of six formations
- each contributing to naval defence.
Those formations are:
- the Fleet,
- Maritime Security Task Force (MSTF) / Maritime Security (MARSEC) Command
- Maritime Training and Doctrine Command (MTDC)
- Naval Logistics Command (NALCOM)
- Naval Diving Unit (NDU) [which includes special forces] and
- Navy Medical Service
Further information on
the Navy and ship characteristics are here
I would say it all began with this Youtube interview https://youtu.be/pFwcX4HfgO4 on 2016 which marked Singapore Armed
Forces (SAF) day. Singapore’s Defence
Minister (since 2011) Dr. Ng Eng Hen holds an interview every year during SAF Day giving updates..
The 2016 interview https://youtu.be/pFwcX4HfgO4 was the greatest interview so far based on the number of major
announcements. Announcements included:
- the unveiling of the Hunter Armoured Fighting Vehicle (4minutes, 12seconds into Youtube)
- the Belrex Protected
Combat Support Vehicle (PCSV) (4m 29s in)
- replacements for the medium lift Super Pumas (4:48) and heavy lift CH-47s (4:59)
- what struck out the most was (6:21 "our LSTs [Endurance class amphibious transport docks] are
aging and need to be replaced by something larger...by a.(the phrase) "Joint Multi Mission
Vessel". It was an unexpected announcement. Perhaps too early for an announcement.
aging and need to be replaced by something larger...by a.(the phrase) "Joint Multi Mission
Vessel". It was an unexpected announcement. Perhaps too early for an announcement.
Mission Vessels (LMVs) would be operational, and indeed with the final 3 of
the Independence
LMVs (also see at https://youtu.be/kBzG-2tPkkk ) entering service in February 2020.
Then there was a thought about the very light 500 ton
(first launched 1988) Victory Class Missile Corvettes. Those Victories were about a decade older than the
[first one launched 1998] Endurance
class amphibious transport docks/"LSTs" (6:27) why weren't there any announcements with regards
to [decommissioning for the all six active Victory class] corvettes?
Then came the year 2018 and Defence Minister Dr.
Ng Eng Hen’s speech during
SAF Day 2018 https://youtu.be/VkkP83vE6XM was the unveiling of the [2,500 ton?] Multi Role Combat Vessel (MRCV) [variant of the Vanguard 130? 130m long = 2,500 tons?]. Other than that were the Next Generation Howitzer [more details?] and use of
unmanned-manned teaming concepts for the services.
With that in mind it would seem that the Navy announced
replacements were settled since there were no other ships of class that needed
replacements apart from the Bedok
Class MCMV minesweeper/mine hunter vessels. Which from what Benjamin
knows are intended to be replaced by unmanned platforms alongside manned
platforms like the 1,200 ton Independence
class Littoral Mission Vessels (LMVs) which can conduct mine sweeping/hunting
roles as one of its module when needed.
So then came the speculation. What ships to succeed the Endurance class amphibious transport docks/ "LSTs" and Victory Class MCVs (Multi-purpose corvettes?).
So then came the speculation. What ships to succeed the Endurance class amphibious transport docks/ "LSTs" and Victory Class MCVs (Multi-purpose corvettes?).
For the Endurance
class amphibious transport docks/ "LST" replacements many were hopping on the Endurance 160
which was revealed by ST Marine back in 2010. Many call it the ideal fit or the
pretty obvious choice even though it is now a design revealed 10 years ago.
However during IMDEX Asia 2017 an [Pete Comment: a flat top 170m long, maybe 10,000 ton] Endurance
170 landing platform dock (LPD) was
unveiled and that reinforced the speculation that the 170 could be the
replacement. However the Endurance
170 article has
downplayed all claims and I couldn't agree more. The "JMMS" [S for ship - or "Joint Multi Mission Vessel" is still far away and
there is no commencement of project. As in my view revealing the idea of JMMS
back in 2016 was premature. Perhaps they want us to get used to its term?
For the unveiling of the Multi Role Combat Vessel (MRCV) [variant of the Vanguard 130? 130m long = 2,500 tons?] during IMDEX Asia 2019 was quite clear cut in my opinion. I mean the
concept is pretty much a match to what the MRCV
is supposed to be. [Here the MRCV looks like it may weigh 700+ tons?].
Friday Part Two
Friday Part Two
Question for Benjamin: is Benjamin the same as famous forumer Benjamin Ong?
ReplyDeleteSeparately, the JMMS is definitely a current, active RSN project. In a guise similar to the Endurance 160/170, it is certainly slated to replace the LST's, which I will be sad to see leave the ORBAT as they were very capable in the coastal hook role, able to land a full infantry battalion with vehicles and armour in one wave. JMMS's size is partly driven by the need to reduce manpower requirements as well as to introduce new capabilities with the long flight deck and elevators. The official downplaying of its role is in line with Singapore's longstanding policy of trying to avoid pointed purchases which could ignite a regional arms race or harm bilateral relations. Selling the JMMS as a Lightning capable carrier would invite accusations of Singapore wanting to acquire expeditionary capability and interoperability with the USMC and JMSDF in the SCS. It's taking a while to come to fruition because there are many concurrent developments which must all come to fruition before the the JMMS as a platform can achieve its goals.
The MCV's are to be replaced by the MRCV's in the RSN ORBAT.
The MCVs' operational history supports this. The MCV's (missile corvettes) were originally designed to have a dual anti surface and ASW role, firing the Harpoon over the horizon using targeting information from Shorts Skyvan radar equipped MPA, and searching for submarines with towed sonar to be engaged with its own torpedos. They were procured to help fulfil the RSN's new mission of protecting Singapore's SLOC's, rather than coastal defence as previous vessels had been. They also placed a heavy emphasis on electronic warfare.
However, with the success of Project Delta, the principal SLOC combatant role was transferred to the Formidable class frigates. There was also less of a need for the MCVs to lug missiles into the SCS for the SLOC combatant role, as a single Formidable class frigate could be fitted with a ready to fire anti ship missile armament equal to three Victory class MCV's. All six MCVs were thus reroled from 2009 to 2013, losing their ASW capability completely as their towed sonar and torpedo tubes were replaced by a launch and recovery system for the ScanEagle UAV, and additional control equipment. The littoral ASW gap was filled by the Fearless class patrol vessels, which were commissioned in 1993, of which six were delivered with ASW kit (hull sonar and torpedos).
Therefore, it is the six MRCV's which will replace the six MCV's. The RSN's positive experience operating ScanEagles from the MCV's informed its decision to procure a "mothership" vessel with a large unmanned payload (drawings indicate 2 USV, VTOL UAV and UUV each for a total of 6 plus a helicopter detachment), which is also able to serve as a surface combatant in the SCS.
Generally, the RSN appears to be gearing up to undertake missions much further out to sea to protect Singapore's SLOCs in concert with the RSAF, while maintaining its littoral and amphibious combat capability. Along the way, some proposed capabilities were abandoned, such as the development of a fleet oiler (scuppered by the Asian Financial Crisis). I propose that the RSN's modernisation plans should be read in that light, taking into account an increasingly contested maritime landscape in the Asia Pacific.
Agree that the announcement of the JMMV on 2016 is an official indication that the RSN will be pursuing this vessel with the clear intention of replacing the LSTs. Timeline is expected to be in the 2030s period
DeleteOf course as what the janes artilce revealed, the 170 was for an export requirement
What i think however, is a ship based on 160/170. After all, these will be older designs by the time we near 2030 Although many like the idea of 160/170 being the JMMS. Why not keep the optiions open?
Yes likely the program has begun by now but perhaps in its infancy
Interesting note, the Hunter began in 2006. Unveiled in 2016. Commisiomed in 2019
13 years of development before it was commisioned during Armour's Formation Anniversary(They had it planned out)
Question of it being able to carry F35Bs remains the hottest topic for the vessel
We are talking about 10 years from now. What will navies in the Asia Pacific region or South Asia or more specifically here in ASEAN will be. We can say to have F35Bs on a ship is quite absurb now but 10 years later? We do not know. Clarity is needed. The Australians and Japanese intend to have F35Bs on their respsctive LHDs or whatever term it is refered to. Korea is building new ones. I forsee the Indonesians aspiring to built a LHD/LHA
Taking reference with the 160/170 and modify the elevators and flight deck to deal with the heat from the F35B like what the forumers discussed. How many can you carry exactly? From 8 - 10? Perhaps as far as 12
Numbers are small
I do not see power projection. I remember reading a commentary article regarding the JMMS and the author wrote that even if Singapore intend to have F35s on the JMMS, its role is mainly reserved fot fleet protection or supporting in Naval operations. Which i agree.
Using the F35s to support Naval Ops and protecting naval assets/installations
On a serious note, Singapore is not capable of force projection as such capability is hard to develope and for us to do that will be too much imo. JMMS will not deliver that capability with its size. You need a LHA comparable to that of other nations which are far more larger and capable.
160/170 is small compared to those other classes.
Plus we have no marines of any sort(unless u count the guards)
There were discussions by some that the reduction of airbases on land could spur the airforce and navy to consider deploying aircrafts on the JMMS. This is speculation but the reason is quite clear considering that in future, only 3 airbases remain. Expanding 2 airbases helps, it is a mitigation. Even so deploying F35Bs on the JMMS would be seen as a mitigation as the ship is small. The program was never meant to alleviate the airforce airbase closure to begin with
If such was the case then in a serious manner, it would have to be a much bigger ship with the key focus on air aspect and lesser on the land/surface role.
Things to note: only 1 airbase in future is able to support the entire RSAF assets. From fighters to transports to UAVs to Helis.
Changi airbase which a civillian airport is also based nearby. I do not think Helis and UAVs will be operating there. I am not sure of any international guidelines that concern busy civillian airports along side UAVs and helis
3rd airbase is helicopters only
Wonder would they consider F35Bs there since it has STOVL capability
The F35B requires 165 meters off runway for takeoff. The 160/170 is too short/close for comfort. Either you have a ramp or you get a longer deck. Though i wonder if you were to have a F35B in beast mode, how much distance does it require to take off?(Anyone knows)
MRCV is quite clear just wonder if IMDEX Asia 21 is on Anticipating the unveiling of ships for MSTF & MRCV(maybe still early)
Am just waiting to see the scale model.
Thanks retortPouch
ReplyDeleteYour August 19, 2020 comment is an excellent analysis of Singapore's naval procurement strategy.
Cheers
Pete
Hi Benjamin,
ReplyDeleteSide question slightly related...
Given as you mentioned only one future airbase is available to all classes of assets, why did MINDEF decide on replacing PLAB instead of SBAB?
Land size seems comparable (particularly if some ops from Seletar are also moved in Changi given constant issues with airspace and Johor. Some of the commercial work could be transferred to Changi Airbase (The one near Selarang)
Then both PLAB and TAB would be able to operate BOTH rotary and runway dependent fighter assets (in addition to CAB as well but maybe with reduced footprint...maybe more transport/naval assets... to allow for more commercial expansion there)
The other "airbase" not explored IMO is expansion of Sudong (with a bit of SCS China style reclamation work) chiefly to transfer say light aircraft Youth Flying Club but also as another potential lilly pad for F35B ops.
I don't see the wisdom in too much reduction of airfields even with F35B.
Granted Air Defense in depth (IMO a CRAM is still needed), Hamas style non Govt actors firing of rockets, just takes several lucky strikes to reduce capacity further. There will still be a good number of assets I presume dependent on runway/roadways way into 2030s.
Maybe a good discussion topic revisit?
The decision of PLAB closure is to facilitate economic developments in that area.
DeleteSo when it comes to these developments the other government agencies are the ones planning in this case its URA.
Obviously mindef does have a say in the matter in which case they supported the plans for future developments. Also note that height restrictions in the city area are due to the presence of PLAB. Perhaps we would see taller buildings in that area in future.
They could provide another option and give up SBAB instead of PLAB but the question to city and urban planners is the location and use. Obbiously the area around PLAB would make more sense to redevelop in the sense of economic developments over SBAB.
Sudong is an Island so there will need to be alot of work to be carried out to get it into a airbase and perhaps costly to sustain anr island base.
It is an option on the table for sure something they may need to consider if they ever need to in the future but what role does it play in this case i wonder.
Hiya Benjamin
ReplyDeleteLet me say, on behalf of the majority of Submarine Matters readers WHO ARE NOT FROM SINGAPORE, this time you've outdone your customary Obscure Unexpanded Acronym habit.
Soooo I'll turn your Sin[Acro]Glish into English. Non-Singo readers please note Pete's square brackets [...]:
"The decision of [the Paya Lebar Air Base] PLAB [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paya_Lebar_Air_Base] closure is to facilitate economic developments in that area [of Singapore].
So when it comes to these developments the other government agencies are the ones planning in this case its [the Urban Redevelpment Authority] URA [https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/About-Us/Who-We-Are].
Obviously [Singapore's Ministry of Defence] mindef does have a say in the matter in which case they supported the plans for future developments. Also note that height restrictions in the city area are due to the presence of [the Paya Lebar Air Base] PLAB. Perhaps we would see taller buildings in that area in future.
They could provide another option and give up [the Sembawang Air Base] SBAB [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sembawang_Air_Base ] instead of [the Paya Lebar Air Base] PLAB but the question to city and urban planners is the location and use. Obviously the area around PLAB would make more sense to redevelop in the sense of economic developments over SBAB.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulau_Sudong ] Sudong is an Island so there will need to be alot of work to be carried out to get it into a airbase and perhaps costly to sustain anr island base.
It is an option on the table for sure something they may need to consider if they ever need to in the future but what role does it play in this case I wonder."
Mucho Cheers
Pete
(finding translating highly technical battery Japanese into English somewhat easier than than translating Benjamin's special Sin[Acro]Glish into English :)