SHAH ALAM: Back in June, Malaysian Defence reported about the cancelled tender for the MMEA multi-purpose mission ship (MPMS) and the fact that the design was supposed to be from Fassmer. It will be the second ship design for MMEA if it is selected. The second one after the NGPC.
Listed below are some of the specifications for the MPMS tender published in April but subsequently cancelled.
Design from Fassmer or equivalent. The designer
shall expert in-house design and have a dedicated engineering team that
works closely with the clients.
7.1 General structure. Length Overall (LOA) – At least 95 meters Hard copy
of catalogue/brochure/drawing/any relevant document to describe this part
must be submitted (Mandatory). Please Refer to Attachment 1
7.2 Breadth Overall- Approx. 17 meters Hard copy of
catalogue/brochure/drawing/any relevant document to describe this part
Page 4 / 45
must be submitted (Mandatory). Please Refer to Attachment 1
7.3 Draught (max load displacement)- Approx. 4 metres. Hard copy of
catalogue/brochure/drawing/any relevant document to describe this part
must be submitted (Mandatory). Please Refer to Attachment 1
7.4 Maximum Speed (full load displacement at maximum continuous rating
(MCR) of the main propulsion)- Not less than 20 knots. Hard copy of
catalogue/brochure/drawing/any relevant document to describe this part
must be submitted (Mandatory). Please Refer to Attachment 1
7.5 Continuous Cruising Speed-Not less than 16 knots. Hard copy of
catalogue/brochure/drawing/any relevant document to describe this part
must be submitted (Mandatory). Please Refer to Attachment 1
Why I am repeating this then? Industry sources told Malaysian Defence that Home Ministry officials recently hosted a meeting with representatives from several local shipyards to discuss the MPMS. Though nothing concrete about the MPMS tender was forthcoming from the officials, those who attended thought that the tender for the ship will be forthcoming.
And it is likely that the specifications listed in the cancelled tender will remain the same once the new one is published. Technically this will be the third design from Fassmer being considered for APMM, the second one was for the OPV but in the end the Damen one was selected.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
How exactly does MMEA intend to use the ships? Resupply other ships (e.g., fuel, provisions, crew change) without having those ships return to shore, to refuel helicopters deployed from shore bases? Or a patrol ship that can stay deployed for extended periods of time and resupply other ships? I would have thought more patrol ships like the NGPC and the OPV would be more useful – just like the RMN prioritising more hulls rather than buy the equally urgent MRSS.
Both of those you mentioned. OPV is more useful really as it is much suitable for open waters unlike the NGPC. The MRSS is not an urgent buy.
Just buy a more than 95M OPV and call it a day.
Kel – “How exactly does MMEA intend to use the ships”
Depends…
– In the narrow confines of the Melaka Straits where ships are aren’t at sea for more than a week and can be gone in a few hours?
– Off Kelantan where sea conditions can be very rough and when ships have to shadow Vietnamese trawlers for days?
– -In the vicinity of Layang Layang where a ship will be on station for a couple of weeks?
– Supporting light craft which have to be anchored to a larger ship when not on patrol?
Yes, depends on operational requirement but quite obviously the purpose of a “mothership” as its designation implies is support units at sea….
“How exactly does MMEA intend to use the ships?”
All of the above with the additional benefits (like police marine upcoming mother ship) able to be utilised as a RoRo for intra theaters movement.
As for MRSS Pretty pointless for RMN to get MRSS 1st without having enough escorting assets to “secured” it I guess.
… “Just buy a more than 95M OPV and call it a day”
Hardly … OPVs are great in the open waters of the EEZ but in confined waters such as the Sulu sea; as well as the Straits of Melaka a smaller ship is needed. Would be somewhat simple if all the MMEA was required to do was confront intruders in the EEZ but that’s not the case; for various roles a smaller ship is more practical/ideal as was pointed out by an acquaintance in the MMEA who was formerly RMN.
Zaft – “ able to be utilised as a RoRo for intra theaters movement”
That is not what it’s being procured for …
Azlan “That is not what it’s being procured for …”
None the less, it’s what it could do & such capabilities is explicitly details in the alleged tender requirements
Azlan, from the tender requirements, the MPMS should be at least 95m, not “smaller” like you assume.
The MPMS is not “small” and cannot be used in confined waters for the roles that you mentioned.
…. – “be at least 95m, not “smaller” like you assume”
Who’s “assuming” : you? You have a penchant for coffee king others “assume” things when it clearly wasn’t the case…
… – hould be at least 95m, not “smaller” like you assume“
What I stated was in simple language which leaves no room for obfuscation. It was in reference to MMEA ships in general … Also, it was clearly stated that what I mentioned was told by a former RMN acquaintance who’s now in the MMEA and might know a thing or two about his job …
Between more OPV and the MPMS, I dont see how MPMS instead of more OPVs is beneficial to MMEA given the 4 OPVs it curently operate are old vessels. Another 3 or 4 Tun Fatimah type ships might be better, giving MMEA the option to retire the 4 old vessels. I suppose viewing in totality all Naval assets, it would be useful as it can also support RMN and Polis.
P.S.
Typo. You have a penchant for assuming others “assume.
This is a topic specifically on MPMS, and I am explicitly talking about MPMS, and Marhalim clearly put the qoute on MPMS tender specs that it must be more than 95m in length and you are telling that i am the one who is assuming everything??
That is rich.
I am talking on topic, with zero assumptions on the topic, when you off the bat rambling about smaller ships and what not. And this is also comes from the person who always puts other people down for obfuscating and not sticking to the topic.
Kel – “Between more OPV and the MPMS, I dont see how MPMS instead of more OPVs is beneficial to MMEA given the 4 OPVs it curently operate are old vessels”
It’s a question of deciding what they need in order of importance.
Obviously the ability of certain assets to maintain a presence in certain areas will be enhanced by the availability of MPMSs.
Kel – “it would be useful as it can also support RMN and Polis”
Interoperability is always important; especially when one is under resourced. All 3 services and non military agencies have a history of cooperation which spans decades but much more needs to be done; beyond the bare basics; in the face of competition, bureaucracy and parochialism.
If it was up to the RMN the MMEA would be fully responsibly for certain roles but alas the MMEA is under resourced and the RMN is the only entity able to fill the void. If it was up to the MMEA there would be no Marine Police and if it was up to the Marine Police it would have greater responsibility [and the funding that comes with it] to perform certain roles.
… – “That is rich”
Coming from you …
A quick look at my post clearly explains what my comments were in reference to. As I said: it was in simple language which leaves no room for obfuscation …. Apparently doesn’t apply to you.
… ,”I am talking on topic, with zero assumptions on the topic, when you off the bat rambling about smaller ships and what not”
The … pot shouldn’t be calling the Azlan kettle black. As for “rambling” yiu would know wouldn’t you …
– “puts other people down for obfuscating and not sticking to the topic”
Something you would win hands down if there was such an award.