Malaysian Defence
www.malaysiandefence.com is the first Malaysian-based English website dedicated to the Malaysian defence and security news. Malaysian Defence is helmed by Marhalim Abas, who was a former journalist and editor with the New Straits Times, the Malay Mail and the SUN daily.
We are pleased to accept advertisements to help us maintained the site. If you are interested please sent a proposal to marhalim68@gmail.com.
Discover the epitome of precision and elegance with our exquisite replica watches. Crafted with meticulous attention to detail, each timepiece embodies the essence of Swiss watchmaking heritage. Experience luxury without compromise with our stunning swisswatch replicas.
For related articles about Replica Watches, please read:
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal PaymentFast Combat Boats or FICs?
Sundang Home
Hilux GSO and ATVs
Gempita, Nexter LG1 Deliveries and More
Highest Decorated Soldier In Service
Sarawak MMEA To Get OPV This June
Tactical Gear For Narcotics Department
From Aludra To Matrice
Bullet/Stab Proof Vests For PDRM
Out Of The Blue
I hope gov@mindef will replaced the 14 old golden vessel with next generation vessel in the future.
From the pictures, those are really the EOFCS115A on the KD Ganyang.
I have been watching for the EOFCS115A on any Kedah class ships, but so far none is equipped with them.
Actually how many EOFCS115A are we getting as a swap with the expired otomats?
Reply
Its in the story, the last time I checked it was eight
@ marhalim
sorry i didn’t see the numbers. thanks for the reply…
anyway
There is a blog that wants the NGPC to be a replacement for TLDM old PC and MCMV.
IMO that blog does not look at the needs of malaysian maritime security from an overall outlook, also does not understand what kind of capability that future MCM missions will need.
The vosper PCs tasks can be undertaken by NGPC, of course. But the best course of action is to actually pass the mission currently undertaken by TLDM PC to MMEA. If we need to build 2 new NGPC to replace the PC, then 2 additional NGPC for MMEA is what we need, not 2 NGPC for TLDM. We have the MMEA now, so those tasks should be borne by MMEA, not TLDM. We need TLDM not to be distracted by doing missions that MMEA NGPC can do, to be able to to concentrate on being the force we can rely on when peace turns to war.
Future MCM mission suites with multiple unmanned systems need a large mother craft as a base for all those systems. A small ship like NGPC or even the current MCMV does not have the optimal space needed.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnClJEaXYAE12dh.jpg
While some countries are looking at custom built MCM motherships, IMO the same tasks can be undertaken by a lightly modified OSV vessel, which can be a multi role ship.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaNygr8XsAAMGna.jpg
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/on-budget-and-schedule/#comment-437376
Now I am confused. I thought the RMN has decommissioned the MM38s.
Reply
Sorry I didn’t thought it would caused a confusion by putting up the picture of the FAC still with the launchers
Does the MM38 Exocet still operational? Can see the launchers in 2019 photos.
Reply
Yes the launchers are there
As for me i reckoned only the newest fac are worth keeping for,the handalans i believe..Replace all the remaining fac with LMS at least for 8 units and arm them with either ssm or sam if we cant afford to put ssm n sam in a ship..put 40mm gun at the very least n select ship with minimum speed of 26-28 knots..
@ marhalim
IMO the lima 2019 pictures are file pictures from previous lima, not in 2019 itself.
This is a picture of KD Ganyang from 20 Sept 2019. already with EOFCS115A
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EE6V2xJUcAAJGgp.jpg
There is another ship with EOFCS115A. Its the KD Pendekar. Unfortunately KD Pendekar is not active on twitter. This is a picture of KD Pendekar in 28 Feb 2020, during tioman war 1/20
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/ER2HOK8UwAA0uDA.jpg
KD Ganyang also during tioman war 1/20
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/ER2HOK-U4AAUdqD.jpg
Also marhalim, is there an effort by TLDM to get back all the vospers from MMEA that is not yet sunk for artificial reefs to be recommissioned into the navy? One of the ship that they are looking at is the ex KD Sundang 3149. Probably why suddenly the LMS68 is launched without names as they will probably have names that does not clash with surviving vosper patrol crafts?
http://mobile.twitter.com/Mawilla_1/status/1286218785767084032
surviving vospers (afaik)
KD Sundang 3149
KD Panah 3155
KD Rentaka 3159
KD Sri Sabah 3144
KD Sri Melaka 3147
plus still operational
KD Sri Perlis 47
KD Sri Johor 49
i seriously applaud the efforts, energy, time and money that TLDM has gone to increase the number of available hulls. They have IMO done way more than what they are required, which in turn sacrificed other needs of the navy.
This is IMO should be an effort by MMEA, as all these FAC and PC TLDM is spending so much effort to recommission are at best patrol only assets.
Hazone – “Does the MM38 Exocet still operational”
Retired almost a decade ago.
Firdaus – “ i reckoned only the newest fac are worth keeping for,the handalans i believe”
It’s not only the age which is an issue but the state of the hull: plus key components like the gearbox, engines, etc. Certain things are seen as worth replacing; some aren’t.
You can have a newer ship which use in worst condition than an older ship. The Laksamanas are an example. Younger than the FACs but were in worst shape. Many years ago the RMN did look at the possibility of new hulls but decided against it.
Firdaus – “Replace all the remaining fac with LMS at least for 8 units ”
The intention is to replace the FACs and Laksamanas with the LMS.
Firdaus – “.put 40mm gun at the very least”
As it’s secondary mount the RMN has decided to standardise on 30mm which although being a smaller calibre offers certain advantages over 40mm.
… – “even the current MCMV does not have the optimal space needed”
The “optimal” space needed is dictated by the needs of the user. He might determine he only needs ‘x’ number of USVs/UUVs and other things which can go on a hull of a certain size.
It’s of academic interest only as the class is to be retired but there is enough space on the sweep deck and boat deck of the Mahamiru to mount several USVs/UUVs. The Olisters are mounted on rails and quite a bit of space on the sweep deck is taken up by the wire sweep which if removed creates more space.
….. – “I seriously applaud the efforts, energy, time and money that TLDM has gone to increase the number of available hulls”
This is something the RMN and it’s sister services have long been doing.
Maintaining their commitments despite severe limitations; forced to improvise and undertake certain steps that by right they shouldn’t; no thanks to political masters who not only keep shifting priorities; fail to provide a firm timeline as to when funding can be made available to enable the services to plan accordingly and also expect the services to do their job despite not providing them the means.
On top of that we have a general public mostly clueless and indifferent to the needs of the MAF and the importance of adequate and sustained investments to be made.
@ azlan
” enough space on the sweep deck and boat deck of the Mahamiru to mount several USVs/UUVs ”
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcNr0PiU8AI0Iqi.jpg:large
As you can see there is not much space on the mahamirus. Even the 2 RIB carried are very small ones. MCM USV are 12-14m in length. And a few of them is needed in a MCM unmanned system.
http://i.f1g.fr/media/figaro/orig/2018/10/23/XVM7e2b5dd6-d5fd-11e8-996b-eba59119ab1e.jpg
A few of these cannot fit onto small ships like NGPC or even the mahamirus. Future MCM USVs are used to carry UUVs into the minefield, or tow mine detecting sonars, leaving the mothership at a safe distance outside of the minefield.
IMO the most cost effective way to recapitalise our MCM capability is to embrace the unmanned MCM concept, and acquire secondhand OSV vessels as motherships to the MCM systems.
… – “As you can see there is not much space on the mahamirus”
I have actually been on the Mahamirus (my observations as mentioned in the previous post was not gained from pics) and have has a good look at the boat and sweep deck. Again : there is space to mount several USVs/UUVs if desired; especially if the wire sweep is removed. No it’s not an ideal arrangement but one which is possible. Note that the decompression chamber on the boat deck also takes up space which can be freed for use.
…. – “MCM USVs are used to carry UUVs into the minefield, or tow mine detecting sonars, leaving the mothership at a safe distance”
I’m aware of that but thank you.
I will also point out that not only is sufficient space needed to carry several USCs/UUVs (what’s not “optimal” for some may be “optimal” for others) but also the ability of the CIC to handle several USVs/UUVs simultaneously and time it will take to detect, classify and neutralise a mine.
Things get somewhat harder if an opponent has laid not only bottom laid mines but also moored ones in the same area.
… – “IMO the most cost effective way to recapitalise our MCM capability”
Yes you have mentioned. Whilst I certainly agree that USVs/UUVs are the way to go; I’m personally undecided on the actual platform (we’ve discussed this before). A number of naval people I’ve spoken to (RMN and others) are themselves undecided on the issue.
Query, would it be possible to wire the Kedah and Lekiu to use nsm already ordered? Is it feasible both tech and cost wise ?
Reply
In theory yes, but from what I have been told before, no.
@ azlan
“I have actually been on the Mahamirus”
Me too.
The sweep deck at most could double the current USV carried, by removing wire sweep and hyperbaric chambers. still much lesser than even a single of those USV like ECA inspector 120 can carry. It still cannot fit a large USV that can be used to tow sonars, so the mahamirus still need to physically enter a minefield.
” also the ability of the CIC to handle several USVs/UUVs simultaneously ”
Exactly why a larger vessel like OSV is needed. Oil and gas OSVs are already built to handle ROVs, some with dedicated control rooms for ROV.
http://www.edtoffshore.com/assets/mainmenu/178/images/b_imca.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCkKRtGUMAAcS9u.jpg
… – “Me too”
Brilliant! Then you’ll know the size of sweep (where I had my nicotine fix) and boat deck and after taking into account the removal of the wire sweep (the reel, cable, floats and kites take up space) can make a rough estimate of how many UUCs/USVs can be carried; without the need for photos.
… – “The sweep deck at most could double the current USV carried, by removing wire sweep and hyperbaric chambers. still much lesser than even a single of those USV like ECA inspector 120 can carry”
As I clearly said in 2 previous posts : it can accommodate “several” ….
If you’re comparing it to a larger vessel then obviously it can carry a larger number but the number carried will also depend on how many user sees is needed based on his projected requirements.
Also; with regards to your “larger vessel” it all depends on a user’s requirements and whether one wants/needs an ocean going MCM ability or a littoral one
… – “Exactly why a larger vessel like OSV is needed”
Not “exactly” but no ….
The ability of a CIC to simultaneously handle several UUCs/USVs is not determined by the size of the ship or the CIC but the number of stations/consoles and the means to deploy those USVs/UIVd in the water. Also; in actual reality; even if a large MCM ship has several UUVs/USVs; at anyone time – even if if has several USVs/USVs – it won’t be dealing with several or multiple mines simultaneously but the most threatening or the one which has already been detected and classified ….
….. – “still cannot fit a large USV that can be used to tow sonars, so the mahamirus still need to physically enter a minefield.”
Who said it can? Let’s stick to the same page – you’re extolling the virtues of a larger ship; I’m merely talking about the Mahamirus. As I said : it’s not an ideal arrangement but one which can be done if required. As I also sai; it’s only of academic interest as the class is to be retired. If you want to directly compare it to a newer and larger ship then naturally it will fall short.
As for “entering” the minefield (to quote you) depends on the operational circumstances; i.e. the type of mine; how early or late it was detected; the urgency; etc, etc. As for “towing” sonars the “mother ship” (some navies will still see the need for a purpose built MCMV)depending on the user might and probably have an integral sonar; enabling it to search, classify and identify from a distance.
Even with other MCMVs – let alone newer ones – a ship didn’t always have to enter a minefield; i.e. a bottom laid mine detected early would see the ship deploying its Olister a distance away from the mine.
I think RMN shouldn’t ditch the idea of dedicated MCMV vessel cos it still need the real role as for LMS as for support only.
@ azlan
” As I clearly said in 2 previous posts : it can accommodate “several”.
USV like the ECA inspector 120 is 12m in length.
The mahamiru RIB is just about 6m in length. An ECA inspector 120 will fill up the area from stern up till up to the smokestack.
” bottom laid mine detected early would see the ship deploying its Olister a distance away from the mine ”
So how does a mahamiru detects a bottom laid mine early before deploying its olister? USVs role is to carry or tow mine detection sonars that is usually carried on, or installed to the hull of a conventional MCMV vessel.
BTW this is the future MCM concept of belgian navy. All the things they are doing with bespoke MCM mothership can actually be fitted to a OSV.
http://youtu.be/qwcO0LuYa5c
…. – “The mahamiru RIB is just about 6m in length. An ECA inspector 120 will fill up the area”
You must as well tell me something as plainly obvious as the world is round or that Zanzibar is now part of Tanzania.
The discussion wasn’t about the merits of a smaller ship VS a larger ship or whether the Mahsmiru could carry as much stuff as a larger ship. It wasn’t ….
It started with me saying something which left no room for misinterpretation : “not an ideal solution but is desired (it’s not); the one man chamber and the wire sweep (reel, cable, kites and otters) could be removed to make space for “several” UUVs/USVs”. My personal definition of “several” is anything from 3-5. No I’m not claiming that’s the exact figure which can be carried but you get my point ….
Great that the RMN is upgrading the FAC. These boats while not suitable for the open ocean is great for work at the Straits n the Sulu Sea. They still have their use.
Unless the RMN can buy more LMS n/ or LCS , maintainning these boats is a great way to patrol the Straits n the Sulu Sea. Some may argue that patrolling work should be left to the MMEA but thats incorrect. Patrolling is also domineering. Keeping a constant presence. A way to claim sovereignty n also provides great training to the officers n crew. Just like for the Army n the RMAF. What for Patrol. Leave that to the PDRM.
BUT NO. Our fighting men should be on the ground n the air to patrol our sovereignty
…. – “So how does a mahamiru detects a bottom laid mine early before deploying its olister”
Simple ….
With its hull mounted sonar. The type of mine determines the response. The primary means of neutralising a “bottom laid” mine is with Olister (a “ROV” not a “UUV” per see) which will lay an explosive charge. The ship does not have to literally “enter the minefield” (to quote you). At times a diver might be deployed.
The ship only “enters the minefield” when it has to deploy the wire sweep to deal with “moored mines”.
For “drifting mines” (either those intentionally set adrift or broken from its moorings) the common way is to detonate it with MG fire.
What I described is the standard way utilised by old school MCMVs; not new gen ones with robotics and other newer stuff.
As it stands there is little or no defence against RAP mines. These are programmed to detonate upon detecting a specific acoustic signature and release a propelled mine moving at high speed; leaving the ship little or no time to react.
There are also mines enclosed in a ceramic casing which is hard to detect by sonar. Deploying a UUV fit a closer look is the answer but it takes time.
Lee – “Some may argue that patrolling work should be left to the MMEA but thats incorrect”
Let’s put things in perspective …
Several agencies are responsible for safeguarding our maritime domain. As it stands; when it comes to peacetime constabulary work; including EEZ patrols and others things; the lead agency is the MMEA …… This is not to say that the RMN should not assist when required.
As it stands, until the MMEA can fully assume all its responsibilities (still a long time in coming); the RMN will still have to shoulder much of the burden. It however doesn’t change the key fact that the lead agency for EEZ patrols; illegal fishing, cross border crime at sea and various other things is the MMEA. There is a clear division of responsibilities and a clear reason behind the formation of the MMEA.
Lee – “O. Our fighting men should be on the ground n the air to patrol our sovereignty”
And they are ……..
The GOF should take on a greater role in ESSCOM and in safeguarding our border; politics being what they are. Ultimately every agency/organisation has a role to play but some should be taking on a bigger role and some (like the Marine Police and RELA( should be done away with.
off topic
On the news that indonesia is interested with getting neptune anti ship shore batteries from Ukraine. Actually the missile is already widely used by another ASEAN country, Vietnam. The Neptune is basically a Ukrainian locally built Kh-35 missile. Vietnam, after importing hundreds of Kh-35 from Russia to equip its ships and shore batteries, now locally manufacture these missiles as the KCT-15.
http://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-produces-indigenous-anti-ship-missiles-3419328.html
@ lee yoke meng
” Our fighting men should be on the ground n the air to patrol our sovereignty ”
I agree with that, and actually they are doing that. What i disagree is for TLDM to spend its budget specifically to get ships that is more suited to MMEA. It is like the army asking to buy honda civic patrol cars to help the police with its duties. Supporting tasks done by our forces shouldn’t require them to be spending considerable amount of their budgets for them, what more dedicated equipments for it.
The appropriate ships for the appropriate seas. The FAC is still relevant especially in the Straits n in the Sulu Sea. Its definitely not suitable for the SCS.
Its especially good for near shore fast attack tactics.
I support the RMNs move
Lee – “The appropriate ships for the appropriate seas”
The “appropriate” assets for the “appropriate” operational conditions.
Lee – “Its definitely not suitable for the SCS”
They are “suitable” if the patrols are not extended and if the Sea State is not too rough. At the moment; the FACs are the only combatants which can use the jetty at Layang-Layang.
Marhalim,
In today’s news it was reported that there has been an attempted attack at the Armed Forces network?
Could verify on how true this is?
Reply
Yes it happened
@ lee yoke meng
Which comes back to all the complaints about the FAC and PC survivability (the mentioned sinking and what not), and also what is wanted for LMS batch 2.
Is it the design fault? Or is it the human fault of using these small vessels as OPVs far away from shore? What do we want actually? If you want a ship that can patrol far away from shore and carry helicopters, you actually dont want a LMS, but need an OPV instead. If we need an OPV, then please allocate the budget to MMEA to get more OPVs.
Then it comes to what you say as near shore fast attack tactics. What is the opponent that we want to attack with our current gun only FAC? Or can we concede that the current FACs are relevant just for patrols in peacetime situations?
I support the RMN move to try and get as many existing hulls as possible to be available for patrol, even if i feel that MMEA should be the one to undertake this effort.
@ azlan
” At the moment; the FACs are the only combatants which can use the jetty at Layang-Layang ”
Which is why I dont prefer the LMS batch 2 to be a ship even bigger than the LMS68.
There are smaller ships that actually have good seakeeping capability. The Damen FCS5009 for example. Sea Shepherd uses one for patrolling the Antarctic waters. They paid USD12 milllion for the Ocean warrior, of which USD9.3 million of that total paid for by dutch lottery. The TLDM budget for the 4x LMS68 can actually buy us 20x Ocean Warriors (which is in my opinion much more better than trying to eke out more lives from our FACs). It has a top speed of more than 30 knots (33.4 knots from its official FB page), and 20,000 mile range (from official Sea Shepherd UK graphics). It has spent 93 days non stop to shadow japanese whaling vessels in Antarctica. It also actually sailed non-stop from amsterdam to australia, all with just its internal fuel tankage. A few reasons why I like this design for LMS batch 2. Yes, it might not have full naval standards like 2 separated engine rooms or such (our FACs also has no separated engine rooms), but for such a small ship it is understandable. The best course of action if it is hit by 57mm, 76mm gun or missile damage is probably to abandon ship anyway. But if used mostly for patrol duties and to shadow chinese coast guard vessels, it is way more capable than the LMS68.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KCOY_2w0u4
… – “Or is it the human fault of using these small vessels as OPVs far away from shore”
It’s not so much a question of “far away from shore” but the fact we used them for roles they weren’t designed for; extended patrols in operational conditions they weren’t suited and where their range, endurance and other factors become major liabilities. You can deploy such an asset “close to shore” but still find they’re unable to put to sea at certain times of the year or during certain Sea States; i.e. the FACs at Tanjung Gelang during the monsoon period.
.. – “Which is why I dont prefer the LMS batch 2 to be a ship even bigger than the LMS68”
I mentioned the Layang-Layang/jetty factor merely as a point of interest. We can’t and won’t factor the size of future LMSs simply on the basis that they can use that jetty – that’s of minor importance in the larger scheme of thins. The bulk of stuff that goes into Layang-Layang is flown in and if by sea (hardly done) the FTVs can dock there.
The value in having the FACs use the jetty is in event of a storm or a rough Sea State; the FACs can and do seek shelter there. It becomes a moot point with the LMS as it has much better seakeeping that the FACs.
@ azlan
” if by sea (hardly done) the FTVs can dock there ”
Remember, the LMS was supposed to replace the FTV functions and missions too in the 15 to 5 plans. A very important point to take into account in the larger scheme of things.
The FCS5009, with its large fuel tankage, could be used for diesel resupply runs to offshore stations. Having build in crane, and space for up to 4 TEU containers is also beneficial for logistic resupply missions.
It could be a very versatile multi mission ship able to do
– littoral superiority with the 30mm RCWS and twin TEU missile modules with 32x CM-501GA/CM-501XA missiles/loitering munition and 8x C-705
– long range shadowing and escort of foreign naval and coast guard ships. able to keep up to most frigates with 30+ knots speed.
– logistics support to outer islands, with large fuel tankage and open deck able to carry 4x TEU containers
– MCM support by carrying USV/UUVs
– Hydrographic survey support
– HADR for SAR and other activities. Fast speed and long range able to be anywhere in south east asian region within 24 hours.
– Diver support with hyperbaric container modules installed.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/moving-on-rmn/#comment-438123
…. – “. A very important point to take into account in the larger scheme of things”
A very important point to also take into account in the larger scheme of things is that we hardly move anything in terms of supplies to
Layang-Layang (almost everything goes by air) and that the ability; or rather the inability of the LMS to use the jetty there will play little or no part in determining the actual size of follow on LMSs.
Also; we know with certainty the LMS was intended to replace the Laksamanas and FACs but whether the RMN actually intends for it to replace the FTVs is uncertain. It’s also possible that the LMS (the 1st 4 and follow ones) will have the needed size and draught to be able to use the jetty there. I don’t know.
” we hardly move anything in terms of supplies to Layang-Layang ”
What about fuel for the generators? isnt resupplying by sea would be much more cost effective? Not only for layang2, but other outposts like pulau perak and islands in ESSCOM.
Anyway the PAT has talked about versatile, lean and mean and effect-based systems.
We as a country cannot afford to spend X amount of budget that isnt going to give us the highest possible effect and capability for the budget.
We has spend USD250 million to get 4x LMS68. Lets say a fully equipped FCS5509 with armoured bridge and accommodation area, 1x CS/AN3 30mm RCWS, 4x CS/LM6 0.50cal HMG, with 2 flat TEU mounting 32x CM-501GA/CM-501XA missiles/loitering munition and 8x C-705 for USD20 million each, that is 12x ships for the same amount of money.
LMS68
length : 68m
max speed : 22 knots
range : 2,000 nm
endurance : 15 days
FCS5509
length : 55m
max speed : 30+ knots
range : 20,000+ miles (17,380 nm)
endurance : 93 days proven in Antarctic Southern Ocean.
http://cms-assets.theasc.com/DJI_0009-copy.jpgjpg
Would it be better to spend USD250 million getting 12x FCS5509 rather than just 4x LMS68?
The ability to shadow and escort of other ships for 3 months by itself is a capability that would be very useful if such extreme case is needed. Something that the LMS68 cannot do.
@…
“8x C-705”
With the history of of 2 C705 failed to fire properly duiring a live firing demonstration, TLDM would surely have sceptical doubts on the missile.
https://m.republika.co.id/berita/odlttl414/chinesemade-missile-failed-to-fire-in-indonesian-naval-exercise
…. – “What about fuel for the generators? isnt resupplying by sea would be much more cost effective”
What is really “cost effective” depends on the situation. With regards to Layang-Layang it makes more practical sense to use the runway; which is there for a purpose. A lot of the electrical supply needs are also met by solar power. As for the other reefs (the size of 2-4 basketball courts) they only have a jetty which can take a CB-90; thus your point of having a LMS (or anything larger than a CB-90) dock there is a moot one.
…. – “Anyway the PAT has talked about versatile, lean and mean and effect-based systems”
All due respect to the PAT; such an approach is nothing new as something we’ve long tried to do; irrespective of him now saying it publicly. I know you’re all gung-ho about it but it’s really nothing new.
…. – “The ability to shadow and escort of other ships for 3 months by itself is a capability that would be very useful if such extreme case is needed”
Such a capability is nice to have but our planning does not take into account the need for a ship with a “3 month” capability (we can’t plan for every uncertainty) –
we replace them at sea with another ship. We focus on the likely things it’s expected to do and the off chance it “might” need a 3 month capability is really unlikely. Even much larger Chinese ships are replenished at sea or now can dock at the recently made reefs – they don’t necessarily have a “3 month” capability.
Like I previously said; there is an off chance what the 4 LMSs ate of sufficient size and drought to use the Layang-Layang jetty; I simply don’t know.
@ azlan
What about actually having 12x armed hulls, or up to 20x hulls exactly like the Ocean Warrior for the price of just 4x LMS68?
Isnt that just a better all round proposition even without considering the better speed and endurance of the platform? Not to mention better logistical and multi purpose capability? Would it be better to have brand new ships with better seakeeping performance for patrol rather than having to keep all those old FAC?
We could be getting a better overall operational outcome with 12-20x FCS5509, rather than 4x LMS68 and 14x old FACs?
@ Luqman
Yes, it failed 2x during initial indonesian testing. They have done other launches that is successful.
http://infopublik.id/read/234166/tni-al-uji-coba-rudal-c-705-dan-torpedo-sut-.html
Whatever it is, the C-705 is cheapest more than 100km anti ship missile out there, with a said cost of less than usd250 thousand each. Its either that or no AShM, and just the CM-501GA/CM-501XA missiles/loitering munition.
@…
“Whatever it is, the C-705 is cheapest more than 100km anti ship missile out there, with a said cost of less than usd250 thousand each. Its either that or no AShM, and just the CM-501GA/CM-501XA missiles/loitering munition.”
I’d spend usd250 thousand x 8 on other equipment rather than on missiles that have higher probability of not working. In Yemen these exact Chinese missile works ‘effectively’ quoted by their manufacturers (what definition of effective is it remains to be unseen). These failed test firing might be caused by user error ie not installing properly etc. That being said this does have some effects on its image
usd8.5 million for 4 NSM or usd6.7 million for 4 ssm700k is my preferred choice for anti ship missile.
@ luqman
We also have our share of missiles that does not work as advertised, seacat, seawolf and rapiers.
The LMS main mission IMO is not for AShM attack. I put those C-705 in my plans as that is the cheapest, and if needed the LMS with the C-705 could be used as a last resort distributed littoral area denial mission.
Putting NSM on the LMS, or what exactly I am talking about, the FCS5509 as the LMS, will not get us a single ship for my targeted USD20 million each price.
For our frigates, subs and shore-based anti ship batteries, yes we should consolidate with just the NSM. But why put expensive NSM on the FCS5509 LMS when its main task is not to kill larger ships, but to achieve littoral superiority against FIACs? If you want to go expensive, better fit these JAGM launchers to the LMS instead of the CM-501GA/CM-501XA missiles/loitering munition and C-705 combo.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38259/this-mini-vertical-launch-system-can-give-small-ships-and-trucks-huge-firepower
… – “ould it be better to have brand new ships with better seakeeping performance for patrol rather than having to keep all those old FAC”
The intention is to gradually replace the FACs.
Getting back; the topic was about the FACs being the only combatants being able to use the jetty at Laysng-Layang; the fact that the ability or nability of LMSs to use the jetty will not play a party in determining the size of follow on LMSs; the possibility that the size and draught of the LMS might enable it to use the jetty and the fact that the bulk of stuff sent to Layang-Layang is flown in.
Luqman – “With the history of of 2 C705 failed to fire properly duiring a live firing demonstration”
A lot of things fail from time to time. Doesn’t mean it’s faulty or problematic. There have been cases – not here – of Harpoon and AMRAAM failing. Things fail for various reasons. Our first Sea SKUAs launch was a failure but subsequent ones weren’t and it was used during the Battle of the Bubiyan Channel.
In reality; it’s not the actual missile’s range, warhead it other things which determines efficacy but the ability to have a coordinated and integrated strike/recce capability. One needs the ability to see far and to coordinate things.