What do you think about the MRCV concept? It's apparently a "frigate"Singapore built and has launched the hull of class leader RSS Victory. It's 8400 tonnes. About as much as a burke.
>>64736033>8,000 tons >32 VLSNot a serious warship build, it's an inefficient missile ship AND undersized chopper carrier at the same time.
>>64736182They are retarded
>>64736033>Supposedly high IQ state with top scores for PISA>Make meme boats that attempt to fill every role but fail in allMany such cases. This is their LCS
>>64736389The MRCV was also designed and built in just a single year compared to the multi decade LCS program. You just KNOW it's going to be utter dogshit. It's a money sink and they should have just bought more French frigates or destroyers. Hugely disappointing for such a militarized state to fall into this trap. It's probably corruption too. You can't just build a destroyer in a year.
>>64736348From the perspective of a poverty micro-nation, there might be some marginal utility in having a really really big escort destroyer that can do other stuff okay. But a serious navy would have built a proper chopper carrier and some escort destroyers instead this goofy thing.
>>64736424It's not a destroyer nor a chopper carrier. It's a unmanned vehicle mothership built for endurance, the VLS is only there for air defence (currently).>>64736182idk where you got that the platform was designed and built in a single year, the first one is delivering in 2028 and news about this has been bouncing around since at least 2019
Every ship should have well decks
>>64736456Contract was won in 2023 and the hull was already launched last year. Sure it's double the years but 2 fucking years? It's going to be a floating disaster, if it floats at all. 32 VLS too, what a piece of shit joke of a ship. Meanwhile Japanese destroyers have 128 VLS.
>>64736456>unmanned vehicle mothership built for enduranceMaybe I'm missing something, explain how it's not a poverty chopper carrier.
>>64736033not a bad anti-piracy platform for a microstate trade port that stands absolutely no chance in a big boy war anyway
>>64736517Given Singapore's defense budget for 2025 is about 30% that of Japan's, they could absolutely scale up and get 15 destroyers and 1 carrier. But they refuse and got these meme floating drone carriers.
>>64736505Yeah it's adapted from a preexisting hull with already proven cap, so it's faster to develop. It's not like they're adapting it from the ground up with new capabilities. All power to the USN etc but we don't have the money nor the industrial capability to build new testbed platforms, we have to adapt euro ones.As said, it's not a VLS platform. It's a unmanned mothership vessel, intended to also have frigate capabilities (it matches the previous la fayette equivs).>>64736506>>64736560Singapore's navy also fulfils most country's coast guard duties, so it's also intended for peacetime and policing roles into the Andaman and the SCS. Also, there is no point in having a carrier and 15 destroyers when the island is surrounded by other countries' territorial waters and there is no manpower to fill them (country is ~4mil citizens).
>>64736560Singapore could have been the Venetian empire of modern times and get themselves a crap ton of destroyers and carriers but instead they are investing in IFVs. It's sad stuff honestly. They would have been a real credible deterrence against China but instead are confined to the strait due to them refusing to invest in a blue water capable navy.
>>64736574>there is no manpower to fill them (country is ~4mil citizens).Venice had 3.3k ships each with each war galley having 200 men. Their population was fewer than 200k. You telling me you can't crew 15 destroyers with a population of 4 million? Fuck off
>>64736590Of those 3.3k ships a good 200 of them were war galleys. Singapore absolutely could crew enough destroyers to contest the south china sea.
>>64736590>>64736595by your arguments the USN should have no trouble filling manpower requirements yet here we are where Burkes are constantly undermanned. Modern navies generally are more technically complex than getting slaves/etc to row real hard. Singapore has conscription but very few of them if any make it to the navy (or air force) combat roles because of readiness requirements and technical knowledge requirements.
>>64736033>It's apparently a "frigate"why are you apparently terminally incapable of understanding that the word "frigate" means different things to different navies?>>64736182it's a ship intended to be a jack of all trades. if you looked at its ancillary specs besides the frigate role, you'd see that.its 32 VLS is a self-defence fit basically.>>64736434>built a proper chopper carrier and some escort destroyers insteadthey don't have enough people or budget for that>>64736560>Given Singapore's defense budget for 2025 is about 30% that of Japan's, they could absolutely scale up and get 15 destroyers and 1 carrierJapan doesn't have 45 destroyers
>>64736632Literally reduce the size of the army and increase the bonus and pay for navy and it's solved instantly. The US faces recruitment problems because all the recruiters are USMC or army. Get rid of them.
>>64736636Japan has multiple carriers and subs. You can convert 30% of that into 15 destroyers each with 128 or more VLS.
>>64736560What Singapore needs is a carrier and an assortment of support ships to facilitate the formation of 1 carrier strike group. Anything less than that and they are exposed and vulnerable. They could be doing annual FONOP through the Taiwan strait but instead they invest in shitty coastal crap to shoot at Indonesian pirates.
>>64736636>its 32 VLS is a self-defence fit>they don't have enough people or budget for (a proper task force)So it's a poverty-tier (chopper) carrier
>>64736663Which is incredibly stupid considering their high GDP and defense budget. They absolutely could be operating a carrier strike group or at the minimal a submarine fleet of 7 wolf packs with 4 subs each
>>64736654>Japan has multiple carriersYou're disingenuously double-counting. They have 4 helicopter carriers, 30% of that is 1 carrier as you said>and subsSingapore is operating and buying new subs too>15 destroyers each with 128 or more VLSDoes Japan operate 50 destroyers "each with 128 or more VLS"?No, it doesn't.>>64736663I wouldn't even call it a carrierit's a multi-role frigate - exactly what it says on the tinDo you think a $15 billion dollar defence budget is a lot of money? it really isn't>>64736665>a submarine fleet of 7 wolf packs with 4 subs eachThey could - at the expense of everything else.Or the subs would be useless Kilo-class types.
>>64736667If Singapore doesn't spend 30% of GDP on it's navy then it's being stupid. Simple.
>>64736665Realistically, a modern navy wants to field at least two ships so they can reliable have one available at all times, four is ideal. If Singapore can sustain two or three of them, they might plausibly get more utility out of them than a single flattop. >>64736667>it's a multi-role frigate - exactly what it says on the tinAn overweight & overpriced one yes. While it could be a semi-reasonable ship given Singapore's specific circumstances it's not a ship a first-rate navy ought to ever consider.
I think Singapore should have a nuclear triad to counter China and invest 50% of GDP on their military
>>64736505>Meanwhile Japanese destroyers have 128 VLS.Sejong is not a Japanese destroyer.
>>64736743>Singapore should have a nuclear triadAre you going to have the ICBM silos built into the top of the skyscrapers anon?
>>64736765Build it into reclaimed land
>>64736765They should annex Brunei and build their silos there as well as in Penang, Malaysia (annexed). As they are now, they are too weak to resist China. They need credible deterrence via nuclear capability.
>>64736765do it
>>64736726They are building six. A flattop is pointless when you consider that Singapore's mainland is like 50km across and its furthest island is like 40km offshore, there's no power projection needed.
>>64736743singapore IS chinese....
>>64736893This is precisely the sentiment that exist in China and therefore Singapore needs nuclear subs armed with nuclear cruise missiles off the sea of Japan and the south china sea to nuke the fuck out of China if necessary.
>>64736033>frigateIt is rated as a corvette actually
>>64737063It's clearly a fucking destroyer. What's with this sneaky classification? What's next? A flat top 27000 ton ship being a patrol boat RC plane carrier?
>>64736671>30% of GDPidiot>>64736726>Realistically, a modern navy wants to field at least two shipsagreed. two is one and one is none>overweight & overpricedfor its capabilities, not reallyit's just that those capabilities are not the kind that most other navies look forfor example, does a Burke have provision to operate a modular Role 2 medical facility on board? nodifferent navies, different requirements>it could be a semi-reasonable ship given Singapore's specific circumstanceswhat do YOU know about their requirements?>it's not a ship a first-rate navy ought to ever considerdifferent navies, different requirements>>64736893only in the same way that America is German, retard
>>64737153Shut the fuck up. Singapork pig
>>64737170found the indog mudslime
>>64737139in NATO parlance, a "corvette" is either a small, usually sub-2kton or even sub-1kton ship, or a warship (of theoretically any size) with limited endurance meaning less than 30 days' independent operationsthis is the latter. it may be 8 ktons but more of that goes to equipment (I'm guessing in this case, automation) than fuel and food
>>64737175Singapore doesn't stand a chance against Malaysia. Your Chinese communist days are numbered.
>>64737222>quick, pretend I'm not a filthy indogbegone, mudslimewe eat bacon here
>>64736033A large, expensive vulnerable vessel with overreliance on unmanned systems and "computing power" to make up for deficiencies in speed and defensive armament, makes this is nothing more .... than the SEA equivalent of a Trump-class battleship
>>64737222Singapore are honorary BRITONS
>>64737244Singapore is a joke. They won't last 3 hours against Malaysian artillery
Many seething Australians on /k/ have already been sounding the alarm since the US decided to sell the F-35 to Singapore as they believe it compromises Australia's air defense to China. While the US can afford to replace the F-35 with something new in 20 years Australians are going to be stuck with them for at least 50.
>the indog spammer found the threadpack it up
