Singapore Buying Two More Type 218SGs

File: Project_636.1_Kilo_class_submarine_SSK_Russia_Vietnam.jpg (103KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 640x426px

>>33974698
Should've bought Russian.

For the same price australia is spending on their diesel bastard child of the french nuclear submarine they could have bought 30 of these and crewed them for 20 years.

>>33974819

Why would a wealthy customer on good terms with Western suppliers buy slavshit?

>>33974819
?
they are not poor or stupid, why would they buy slavshit ?

>>33974885

>12 boats
>literally 50 billion dollarydoo-dollars
Yeah I'd forgotten how much they are going to spend.

expensive subs are useless

Could you imagine how much dollar value would hit the sea floor in the event of a real naval fight

All these ships or subs are going to be too expensive to risk, hell even the aircraft are reaching that point.

>>33975959

A single sub can destroy an entire carrier group with the proper preparations. I'd say they're probably the best value for the amount of attack power they have out of any naval vessel, and they're far, far better at ASW than destroyers are.

File: look what I just found there.jpg (35KB, 820x461px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 820x461px

>>33974698
good choice
>>33975959
hahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaa...hahahahahhahahahahahahahahha

>>33974885
>>33975206
Our submarine contracts are about employment, not submarines. The city they're being built in is like Detroit in the mid 70s, except with second generation English instead of blacks.

>>33974819
Why would anyone want to invest in artificial radioactive reefs?

>>33976582
Yeah but you could employ people for the same time but build two a year instead of 0.75 per year

>>33976582
>>33977077

To be fair to Australia, they have drastically different requirements to Singapore, especially when it comes to range and endurance. Though yeah, that DCNS deal is absolutely eye-watering.

File: 636.3 varshavyanka b-261 novorossiysk (1).jpg (363KB, 1348x900px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1348x900px

>>33975010
>>33975022
Because then by mid 20s they could have had 6 modern subs instead of 2, amerilards.
>>33976597
>Diesel sub
>Radioactive
Amerishit "education".

File: boot-directors-cut-das-jrgen-prochnow-martin-semme-8-rcm408x408u.jpg (56KB, 408x408px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 408x408px

>>33977216
If I could choose between two German subs and a dozen of Russian subs I'd still take the German boats

File: 877 platus b-227 vyborg.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

>>33977325
Too bad you're a nerd loser who can't afford any subs at all.

File: 1489820019667.png (216KB, 351x329px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 351x329px

>>33977365
it this an attempt of banter?

File: ftfy.jpg (145KB, 777x889px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 777x889px

>>33977416
You lost it before you even realised it began.

>>33977472
Show me you private sub, imoutochan

>>33977488
Nice attempt trying to detect his sub

>>33977216

>Because then by mid 20s they could have had 6 modern subs instead of 2, amerilards.
For what it's worth, they contracted for two 218SGs a few years ago. This new order if for a second pair.

>>33976252
>>33976280
only in a peacetime situation where they both can't fire on you & can't use active sonar

File: p55fig3.jpg (38KB, 429x360px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 429x360px

>>33980416
passive always beats active

>>33980627
passive won't find a sub thats sitting still on batteries

Which is how these images of carriers in sub sights happen

>>33977115

True, they're much bigger boats.

>>33980627
>passive always beats active

u wot m8.

Do you think they have the transmitter on the boat itself? You think that the magical space age technology of a cable is beyond any military?

File: 636.3 varshavyanka b-237 rostov-na-donu (1).jpg (96KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1280x853px

>>33980373
Wait, I'm confused, so they ordered two 218 some years ago that are about to be delivered and now they extended the contract for another two by mid 20s? I mean it's singapore, they have pretty fine navy. Why only 4 subs?

>>33982667

Right, Singapore signed for the first two in November 2013, with delivery expected in 2021 and 2022. Delivery for the new procurement is supposed to start in 2024 (with the fourth coming in 2025, I assume). Mind you, I don't know if they are exercising an option on the initial contract, of if this is a second deal.

>Why only 4 subs?
Well, they're in the midst of modernizing/reequipping/expanding half their military right now. More F-15s are coming, F-35s before too long, not to mention an upgrade program for legacy F-16s. New patrol ships and littoral ships. There's also the nascent JMMS program, which as far as I can tell calls for replacing their Endurance-class amphibious ships with mini through-deck helicopter carriers (and that's currently a fleet of four ships).

So yeah, their navy's in good shape, but they're building it out further anyway, not to mention the air force. Maybe they'd like a couple more subs, but they can only buy so much as once.

File: 636.3 varshavyanka b-261 novorossiysk.jpg (516KB, 1417x1019px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 1417x1019px

>>33982851
Makes sense now, all the more so considering the apparently deserved price tag on 218. Although I fail to imagine what could possibly cost a whole billion on a diesel sub. I mean it's pretty much the cost to produce a fuckhuge nuclear attack sub.
>replacing their Endurance-class amphibious ships with mini through-deck helicopter carriers
That's strange, they're pretty modern ships. Seems a bit excessive.

>>33982975
They are tiny diesel subs too
for a billion bucks

If the US had any ship building capacity to spare they could have leased Virginia's or something for that price.

File: 971 shchuka-b k-152 nerpa (2).jpg (169KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1600x1067px

>>33983003
Yeah, that;s why I wonder.
>they could have leased Virginia's
Eeeh, don't think it's an option and not that Singapore is interested in having such "excessive" assets. Virginia is a top-notch American project, sort of a naval equivalent of F-22. I get it when we lease Schuka-B to Indians, but not something on this scale.

>>33982975

>Although I fail to imagine what could possibly cost a whole billion on a diesel sub.
Indeed, I don't know either. Maybe they're getting extra-costly anechoic hull coatings. And presumably they will have top-notch AIP.

>That's strange, they're pretty modern ships. Seems a bit excessive.
Here's some speculation about that.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/exposed-singapores-aircraft-carrier-disguise-12438?page=2
>t is likely that the JMMS, while it possesses the potential to be modified for fixed-wing aircraft and therefore serve as an aircraft carrier, was conceived for peacetime humanitarian aid and disaster relief (HA/DR) missions.
>The experience of HA/DR after Typhoon Haiyan wrought massive destruction in the Philippines in November 2013 highlights the capacity shortfalls of Southeast Asian navies in responding to major disasters. None of the regional navies had a HA/DR capability. The Japanese Ise-class “aircraft carrier” aptly demonstrated how a ship with a larger aviation capacity can be useful for conducting HA/DR.
>Southeast Asian governments have not missed this lesson. If future response capacities are to be enhanced, someone has to take the lead. What Singapore is doing with its JMMS is improving the region’s capability to deal with common security challenges such as natural disasters. It appears to be of no coincidence that the announcement of the JMMS came about half a year following Haiyan, as Ng spoke of the need of replacing the existing Endurance class (STM Endurance-140) landing platform docks, which he remarked to have limited payload including helicopter capacity.

>>33974819
Is there a non-poor third world country that buys Russian?

>>33974698

Wait didn't SG bought Subs from Sweden?

>>33983712

Four back in the 90s (OLD Sjöormen-class boats, surplus from the late 60s), which they used to train the first generation of their submarine service, and then two more in the mid-00s (less old, Västergötland-class).

>>33982975
>>33983003
they won't be diesel subs, they will be hydrogen diesel hybrids

File: z.png (19KB, 448x76px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 448x76px

>>33985382

File: 1490420028440.gif (2MB, 450x273px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x273px

>>33985460
here you go
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-deliver-more-submarines-to-singapore/a-38854529

slavshit sucks and is for poorfags who go muh quantity over muh quality. fuckng vatniggers

File: 1449718261943.gif (2MB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x280px

>>33985521

Awesome, that's good shit m8.

I guess it will be a couple more generations before they can self-refuel at sea though.

>>33985664
>a couple more generations
a couple less than you might think

>>33974819
Couldn't be worse than the used, overpriced, defective UK crap Canada bought. :(

>>33985770

The submarines were fine, until the inefficient short-sighted mess that is Canadian military procurement happened.

File: 1494327120748.jpg (170KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1024x768px

Smart move

Meanwhile here in Australia we're buying our subs from the gooks and killing our shipbuilding industry, unless it's dead already.

>>33980627
I have no idea what that image is trying to communicate and I know the difference between passive and active

>>33986198
Do you even know what you're talking about?
Australia chose the French sub, not the Japanese one

>>33986230
Be nice, he might be a time traveller from 2014.

File: _45503337_sub2_466.gif (19KB, 466x279px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 466x279px

>>33986212
ist's not really good but I already had it on my computer. this one is better

>>33986347
Much better

>>33974698
After embarrassing defeat by fire on one of it's frigates, the Singaporean Navy concluded that fire can not ignite underwater.

Checkmate, fire.

>>33980627
This is no longer the 1940's. We already have subs with better nose reduction purely do to propeller propulsion technology.

>>33986435
I was talking from the subs perspective. The passive sonar of the subs will always have a longer range than the destroyers active sonar

File: 055.jpg (425KB, 612x816px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 612x816px

>>33974819
>buying Russian engineering over German
Shiggy Your Fucking Diggy!

>>33982851

Oh and I forgot that they're looking for new maritime patrol aircraft to deploy by the early 2020s, as well.

Aren't Chinkaporeans Saudi-tier?

>>33988109

In what way?

>>33988109
>Trained by Israelis , French/Belgians , Americans and actually have a will to defend their country
I don't think so

>>33988243
Top of the line stuff, no substance

>>33988329

The RSAF (Republic of Singapore, not Royal Saudi, kek) is deeply trained in the US. The RSN has plenty of counterpiracy and HA/DR experience. So I'd say they're worth something. Singaporean SOF are definitely a genuine capability.

The Army is an open question. In real-world scenarios I think it would be fine. Having to defend an island that is smaller than New York City is motivation enough, especially after what was done to it by the Japanese. And I don't think the Malaysians and Indonesians, Singapore's most likely foes, are known for their mighty warriors either.