KUALA LUMPUR: BNS NGPV Concept. Boustead Naval Shipyard is displaying a model of its conceptual design for the second batch New Generation Patrol Vessel at DSA 2018. Under the RMN 15-to-5 transformation plan, 12 NGPV Batch 2 will complement the six Kedah class patrol vessel already in service.
Unlike the original batch, the navy wants the NGPV Batch 2 as a gun ship only to reduce cost hence the concept design displayed by BNS. The Kedah class was wired for missiles under the Fitted for But Not Equipped concept though it will never be armed with them.
BNS conceptual NGPV Batch 2.
For the conceptual NGPV Batch 2, BNS will use the hull of the Kedah-class as it had paid for the rights. The superstructure will be in one piece similar to the LCS and it will be equipped with a funnel or two depending on customer’s preference.
Two Kedah class, KD Kelantan (175) and KD Selangor (176) berthed at Lumut jetty in early 2014. The ship on the other side is KD Mahawangsa. Malaysian Defence
The model is fitted with a single 57mm gun forward and a 30mm gun aft. It uses the same Airbus TRS-3D radar as well as two Contraves EO device (forward and aft) as on the LCS. The engines will be the same or a variant of the Caterpillar ones as on the Kedah class is to power the new ships.
A graphic of the Kedah Batch 2. via ….
As for cost, a BNS official says it will be less than RM500 million or probably even lower depending on the final configuration by the navy.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
What is with the gun ship only??
If that is the case, better leave that kind of ship to the MMEA.
The super raked front end does not serve any purpose. The rear end rearrangement is good, but keep the current bridge and front end.
For cost effective fit out:
New 57mm bofors.
Chinese CMS
SR2410C 3-D AESA Radar
FL-3000N sam
C-705 AShM
Aselsan smash 30mm RCWS or H/PJ-17-1 RCWS
Or if really just content with a gun ship only.
Just buy the chinese P18N OPV for less than a LMS and be done with it. Extra money to get additional subs in 5 years time.
So The New NGPV Second Batch has no Missile… this is Getting awkward for RMN right now.
We have yet no indication as to what the RMN’s stance is on a guns only NGPV Batch 2 to save costs. We do know however that the Chief of RMN is willing for the 1st batch of LMS’s to enter service without missiles as the priority is to replace the FACs and Laksamanas and the budget didn’t allow for it. With the NGPV Batch 2 it’s still early days and a lot can change.
If anything; it just shows that although the 5/15 appears to be a sound programme; this really remains to be seen and it’s too early to form conclusions as it depends on a steady allocation of funds and other factors that are beyond the RMN’s control. There is always the possibility that a future RMN chief might not be so enthusiastic about it and that changes in the geo-political scene might result in changes. Personally, if the NGPV Batch 2s are armed only with guns; they must as well go to the MMEA.
gun ship only???and here i thought Navy want it arm. i thought it will have same capability like LCS(SSM,SAM and ASW) but cheap and low maintenance. isn’t the made in China ship can be the gun ship?
out of topic-DSA 2018: Pakistan in ‘primary level’ talks with Malaysia on JF-17
found this articles in Janes. this is a gimmick right?there is no one in the RMAF or our Govt even consider this right? Mr Marhalim and Mr …., can you help me shed the light(spotlight) in this matter.
Reply
Just another exhibition talk lah…
Agreed.Forget the Ngpv batch 2 if it only gun.The amount saved can be used for another 2 Gowinds or even 1 scorpene
I don’t see any problem with only arming it a single gun.
zack – ”isn’t the made in China ship can be the gun ship?”
The LMS will enter service fitted only with guns but the intention is to fully arm it at a later date’ finances permitting.
The ship design looks nice. Gud effort by BNS
The announcement on the TRS-3D is to achieve commonality with what we already have and are familiar with. That’s one of the main aims of the 5/15; not to increase the logistical/support footprint; which we will do if we introduce yet another radar into service – this will result in extra costs in the long term. But like I mentioned before; it’s still early days. What BNS proposes might not be the same with what the RMN wants.
Did they say if it will use the same CMS from the 90s? For RM500 million could they possibly just build the exact same ship without any changes?
Reply
A more modern version of current CMS is likely
At least BNS should have some decency to allow fitted for but not with missile. What is the purpose of a bigger boat than the LMS, if it is going to have the same armament as the LMS. More LMS would be the more logical choice.
Reply
As I mentioned in the story they are following the requirements of the end user. Why should we pay for things not going to be fitted with
Kudos ….. A hansome ship design indeed. The design has spaces that allows the addition of SSM , SAM including vls, and ASW weapons easily. the navy has to decide the actual role. With the plan of having 12 lcs means quite a jump in capability… For me i prefer it fitted for ASW platform especially with increase number of submarines in the region and with missile ciws for all ships as self defence. Just my thougths
I think they should just build the same ship with incremental improvements, not introduce new design challenges. I still say commonality in CMS is more effective in the long run to reduce training costs for people, maybe achieve better availability with common spare parts. Maybe buy Scan Eagle for each ship, and 2 x Long-Range Acoustic Device 500 Xtreme (LRAD500X) if it’s just doing EEZ patrols.
Mirsy – ”The design has spaces that allows the addition of SSM , SAM including vls, and ASW weapons easily”
You sure about the VLS part? Also, just because there might be deck space doesn’t mean the space below the deck is free.
Encik – ”Did they say if it will use the same CMS from the 90s?”
Software upgrades.
Encik – ” could they possibly just build the exact same ship without any changes?”
There are certain aspects with the Batch 1s that the end user is not too happy about.
Encik – ” I still say commonality in CMS is more effective in the long run to reduce training costs for people,”
Off course. Which is why BNS has also proposed TRS-3D and the same engine and trackers. Adding yet another radar, tracker, CMS, just because it’s cheap will be silly as in the long run it will be more expensive to maintain and support so many different systems.
Marhalim,
Can a 127mm gun be mounted on the A position, albeit with hull strengthening on the Kedah class batch 2?
A 35mm millenium will look just nice on the hangar. Even a Simbad or Tetral point defence SAM can be mounted on an elevated space behind this CIWS.
There you have it, enough firepower even if it is ‘only a gun armed’ patrol ship.
Reply
I am not sure as I have not seen the schematics of the Kedah class
Zainal,
I could be wrong but I think a slightly larger hull or one with more draught is needed for a 127mm gun. But why would we need a 127mm gun when the main purpose of our main guns is AA rather than NGFs. Apart from the cost being prohibitive, 127mm guns are useful for NGFS but not for AA.
my opinion for 2nd batch NGPV is fitted with:
-Bofors 57mm
-SeaRAM x1
-Phalanx x1
-2x rcws
-8x NSM SSM
“my opinion for 2nd batch NGPV is fitted with”
What’s the point in building castles in the sky? Might as well ask for hypersonics, a carrier and an air force composed entirely of F-22s.
Then again, someone here one asked for a unit of the Tarawa class.