SHAH ALAM: Boustead gets new chairman. Boustead Holdings Bhd has appointed former Johor MB Khaled Nordin as its new chairman, effective on May 1. Khaled’s appointment was announced by Boustead on April 30.
In its release, Boustead stated that Khaled was appointed as a non-independent, non executive chairman of the board. Khalid, 61, was previously served as the Johor MB from 2013 to 2018. Khalid was appointed as a nominee from the Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT), the biggest shareholder of Boustead.
Boustead also touted Khaled’s achievements in the successful of restructuring and turnaround exercises of JCorp during his tenure as chairman of the company as he was the MB of Johor. It is clear that the LTAT is banking on Khaled’s experience to help the company and its subsidiaries overcome the crisis especially those of the LCS project.
Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Bin Nordin Appointed as The New Chairman of Boustead Holdings Berhad
KUALA LUMPUR,30April2020–Boustead Holdings Berhad (‘Boustead‘) is pleased to announce the appointment of Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin as the company’s Non-Independent Non-Executive Chairman of the Board,effective 1 May 2020. Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin, 61, previously served as the 15th Menteri Besar of Johor from 2013 to 2018.
Under his five-year leadership, Johor witnessed a steady growth in its economy, with the State’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)standing at RM100 billion.The average GDP growth rate was recorded at 5.9%,which at the time surpassed Malaysia’s average GDP growth rate of 5.1%.
From 2013 to 2017, Johor was also the leading investment destination in the country with the entry ofRM114.9 billion worth of investments in the manufacturing sector alone.
With his appointment as the Menteri Besar of Johor, Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled served as the Chairman of Johor Corporation Berhad(‘JCorp’). He also served on the Boards of companies within the JCorp Group as well as other Johor State Agencies. During his tenure at JCorp, the group successfully implemented several restructuring and turnaround exercises.
Prior to his tenure as the Menteri Besar of Johor and Chairman of JCorp, Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled was the Minister of Higher Education from 2008 to 2013.
Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled also served as the Minister of Entrepreneur and Cooperatives Development from 2004 to 2008. In addition, from 1990 to 2004, Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled servedthe nationas Deputy Minister of Works.
Before he embarked on a career of public service, Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled was attached toPetroliam Nasional Berhad(‘PETRONAS’). Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled holds a Bachelor of Laws (Hons.) degree from the University of Malaya.
As Non-Independent & Non-Executive Chairman, Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled is a nominee of Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera(‘LTAT’), Boustead’s largest shareholder.“The Group is pleased and honoured to welcome Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled as Boustead’s Chairman. We are confident that the Group is in very good hands under his proven leadership. Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled’s vast experience from leading Johor as well as his key positions in various ministries, will certainly strengthen the Board in guiding Boustead to improve the way we do business and increase our prospects over the long term”,said Dato’ Sri Amrin Awaluddin, Managing Director of Boustead Holdings Berhad.
— Malaysian Defence
Any news about LCS?
What is the construction status of all four hull? (*more than 90% or not?)
When the keel laying of fifth and sixth ship start?
Sorry too many question 🙂
First DEFTECH, then now Boustead. Next?
All for the best I suppose. Hopefully he will be able to turn Boustead around and complete the LCS, plus improving the NGPV and LMS.
Any political appointment is no good. Just forget about politics. Appoint some professionals who are really qualified to lead n turn around the company. Things cannot be done business as usual. Save money. Be efficient. Deliver . Otherwise just let it close shop. Open tender in future n give it to the most efficient. Its funny right. Overseas navy can build their ships sucessfully using our local yards yet our Boustead cant deliver.
@Lee Yoke Meng
Najib did that and it worked, but it stepped on too many toes that did him in from within. Many qualified professionals would be wary of working for the Government by now even if there is a will.
Hi, what are your thoughts on the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate? (Danish Navy), would you buy a FEMMS, Stigma Class? or other types? Let’s say you’re given a USD10B-20B budget, what would you acquire? With in mind Malaysia having a new 5000-10000 royal marine force?
I quite like the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate, but it needs a sister ship? Like a Corvette? A AW101, Sea Hawk or NH90 helicopters
My father was in the Army, in the 70’s, and since young I have been fascinated with military hardware
Which case worked?. None
Who in their right mind would buy iver when they have d money to buy fremm.we should watch the usn frigate program closely. If they successful n manage 2 bring d cost down ,3or 4 of those 👶 for us would be great. D second best option for me personally is d Japanese frigate. Cheers.
@Lee Yoke Meng
I understand your pessimism, but it does seem that he has a decent track record (from the article). I suppose we’ll have to wait and see if he manages to shake up Boustead and more importantly have those Gowinds delivered to the Navy. I am hoping there’ll not be a repeat of NGPV fiasco back then.
I think he is good, suitable enough for the post.
All the best to BHIC.
@ Daniel
Hi and welcome to Malaysian Defence.
We have discussed this quite a lot here. This is my take on the iver huitfeldt, or what i would prefer, the Type 31 version of it
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/back-into-the-future/#comment-426645
Do go through the very detailed article on the iver huitfeldt
More reads on the arrowhead 140 type 31 and iver huitfeldts
http://www.ft.dk/samling/20141/almdel/fou/bilag/20/1417702.pdf
http://www.babcockteam31.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Arrowhead-140-Brochure.pdf
IMO in all we should have 9 Gowinds, then 4 Type 31 as a replacement of Lekiu and Kasturi class frigates.
Gowinds
2006-2025
KD Maharaja Lela 2501
KD Sharif Mashor 2502
KD Raja Mahadi 2503
KD Mat Salleh 2504
KD Tok Janggut 2505
KD Mat Kilau 2506
2026-2030
KD Laksamana Tun Abdul Jamil 2507
KD Laksamana Muhammed Amin 2508
KD Laksamana Tan Pusmah 2509
Type 31
2031-2035
KD Lekir
KD Kasturi
2036-2040
KD Lekiu
KD Jebat
To save KD Hang Tuah, i propose the ship to be fully refitted to OPV standard and maintained as a fully operational commissioned vessel. to be our ceremonial flagship like Thailand’s HTMS Pin Klao. Boustead, you can do this for the country right?
http://www.facebook.com/htmspinklao/
http://scontent.fmkz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/p960x960/56242532_2139455006175058_24531268351819776_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=85a577&_nc_oc=AQkB2onTzD5ZlSQF54DNfg5rGiuUAXMW_NzOF2Izqo8iqcU9fMJeR2vqMWlMp3R3inQ&_nc_ht=scontent.fmkz1-1.fna&_nc_tp=6&oh=0563054a92c405db55fe34d585d46cc2&oe=5ED747A8
@ ujang
Iver @ Type 31 can be bought at Gowind prices. FREMM costs double of that.
@Daniel
Don’t let the IH cheap pricetage fool you. Much of the subsystems and weapons were reused and they were built in cheaper shipyards in East Europe before final assembly in Denmark.
They are huge frigates, more than 2X tonnage off Maharajalelas, and in our context more towards frigate leader class hence it will require the accompaniment of other frigates & corvettes as escorts, something we can’t afford. As our defences are more towards littoral waters, we have no need for fleet flagships.
@ joe
Why does a frigate need to be escorted by another frigate? A frigate that cannot protect itself is just a large OPV. A large ship such as LPD, aircraft carriers need to be escorted because it cannot defend itself from subsurface, surface and air threats.
For the replacements of our Lekius and Kasturi classes, we need another type that can do things that the gowind cannot in the future.
For example.
– we need to have a future frigate that can act as our flagship, that has a dedicated command center for flagship tasks.
– we need to have a future frigate that has the hangar space and landing pad that can carry both a UAV and Helicopter.
– we need to have a future frigate that has a long deployment time on station.
– we need to have a future frigate that has 4 boat stations, that can deploy either RHIBs for boarding purposes, or USVs for surveillance.
– we need a future frigate that has a more powerful and longer radar range when compared to the gowinds. Able to carry more anti air missiles fo afford protection of itself and ships around it.
– we need a future frigate that is of similar size to most other frigates that is deployed by our adversaries. The optics of a large frigate is also important to show that hey, we are here, and this is our waters.
We dont really need 12 asw gowinds. We do need a few larger frigate that can do things that the gowind cannot. So a mix of 9 gowinds and 4 Type 31s by 2040 is IMO the sweet spot between capability and afforability for TLDM.
@…
That is like asking why Ticonderogas on patrol always have destroyer escorts even when it is that multi-capabled.
Large frigate/destroyer leaders have traditionally been the flagship of a frigate/destroyer squadrons in absence of a cruiser hence they do travel with escorts.
We aren’t looking to be a blue water navy hence we have no need for a dedicated flagship. The MRSS could be used as such if when the need to arises.
The Gowinds aren’t fixed in concrete with the equipment they came with. It can be the same hull but outfitted for other dedicated functions like ASub. My preference in view of cost, technology transfer, manpower, operations would be a Maharajalela fleet but outfitted differently. If they can be all-roundedly armed like Formidables, even better.
@ joe
Tico is a cruiser. It is always used to escort other ships like CVNs and LHAs, not the other way round.
You are saying gowinds can be fiitted with other equipments like saying you can fit 7 persons in an Axia. There is a finite amount of space available. The future is in unmanned systems, and for that we need more space for things like UAV and USV. You cannot put in other equipments in spaces that is not available in the first place.
Also when your frigate is just a lengthened corvette, do you think it looks intimidating to foes with bigger frigates and destroyers?
@…
Ticonderogas does perform their own patrols and port visits without carrier presence.
Your asking us to buy a 7seater large MPV while only 4 persons need to travel at any one time. It is overkill and unnecessary. If different persons need to be somewhere else and meet up later, better to get more cars. The same we don’t have to equip a large ship with all the bells and whistles, we just need to equip Maharajalelas differently based on needs (the 6 current general purpose ones, 6 AD ones with longer radars & AA missiles, 6 with bow & towed sonar + ASub ordinance).
And if I want presence, I would’ve gone for battleships with huge guns. This isn’t the 20th century, a ship like Formidable is formidable by its own potent sting. A smart combatant would recognise that very real threat and not the size of the ship.
A quote I recalled: Its not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog.
@ joe
” Ticonderogas does perform their own patrols and port visits without carrier presence ”
EXACTLY!!! You are contradicting yourself all over here!!! Read back your previous comments. Exactly why your original notion that a large frigate must to be escorted by other frigates is bonkers!!! The Type 31/Iver Huitfeldts can perform its own patrols without the need to be escorted by other frigates.
On space. I repeat.
You cannot fit stuff where there is no space for it!!! You cannot use gowind to carry both helicopter and UAV!!! Why have scanegles if you cannot use it on your frigates!!! Also you cannot carry USVs as there is no space for it!!! There is no AD frigates with tiny size of the gowinds!!! The gowind is a corvette by design, it cannot be enlarged further!!! Exactly why france is going for the FTI/Belharra for its new frigate, not the gowind!!!
When we plan for our future fleet, we dont just compare and benchmark with other current fleet. We must plan and anticipate what others plan for their future fleet.
I just give you 1 example. Singapore in the future is going to get Multi-Role Combat Vessel (MRCV), basically what is going to be their next generation surface combatant. They are planning to embark all kinds of unmanned systems from that ship, which requires plenty of space not available on designs such as the gowind.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gpSjJXD_7Y8/XNvtPvH8ZEI/AAAAAAAAGlU/_AuwvifimbUdIPb_5y_1lgHmadWWOq2-gCLcBGAs/s1600/MRCV.jpg
If you can see from the graphic above, it is planned to be available from 2030. Which is exactly why i plan for Type 31s in TLDM starting 2030 too.
Singapore’s own ST Engineering, has came out with the vanguard 130 design for this.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mkr5wht3nEg/XN2udhHQzcI/AAAAAAAAGlw/ZYtWxRZusIQbrT7I5tP-rGgmLS5_Ta7GQCLcBGAs/s1600/Vanguard%2B130%2BSTE.jpg
The vessel is a full fledged surface combatant because it is fitted with VLS for surface to air missile, anti-ship missile launchers, torpedo launchers, decoy launchers as well as 76mm, 30mm and 12.7mm gun mounts. The ship has a length of 130 meters, a speed of 28 knots and a displacement of 5,000 tons. Can you see the displacement? It is clearly much larger than the gowind to carry all the unmanned systems.
http://www.navalnews.com/event-news/imdex-asia-2019/2019/05/imdex-2019-st-engineering-unveils-vanguard-130-multi-role-combatant/
That is one of the reason why IMO we need the Type 31 to complement our gowinds. Others is having a common frigate design with our ally the UK and probably NZ too.
Go look up at what indonesia, china plan for their future frigates too, and tell me if having all 3,000 tonne frigate fleet would be enough in the future.
“The vessel is a full fledged surface combatant”
It is better to speak to what purpose the ship is intended for, since “surface combatant” can refer to anything from a ASW corvette to a AAW cruiser. How does its systems fit help it perform its intended roles?
“Go look up at what indonesia, china plan for their future frigates too, and tell me if having all 3,000 tonne frigate fleet would be enough in the future.”
It’s the systems that we put on Gowinds by choice, that put us far short of the potential that can be carried on a 3,000 tonne hull. The Formidables are living proof.
@ AM
If the Formidables are future proof and big enough to field all the unmanned systems, singapore would not plan for the bigger Multi-Role Combat Vessel (MRCV), and would be enough just to build more improved Formidables instead.
@…
Ticonderogas carries out missions other than carrier escorts but even then they do come with screening 1-2 destroyers and/or resupply ship. They don’t act on their own.
SG MRCV is destined to replace corvette type ships so it likely won’t be far larger than Formidables of today. You say they need a larger hull to pack all those gadgets in, but take a look at how much is packed into the Formidables. Taking that lesson, they can do that on a hull not much larger than currently. The infograph didn’t say specifically the ship will be larger, only that it will be more capabled with the various mission modules so with multiple MRCVs carrying different config modules can perform all those functions that it specified. It doesn’t need to be a bigger ship.
@ joe
Feel happy to believe your own wrong assumptions.
Anyway the Formidables is the replacement of FACs, and their F-15s is the replacement of F-5Es.
So if you think MRCV is a small corvette-sized vessel, up to you then.
http://daisetsuzan.blogspot.com/2019/05/multi-role-combat-vessel-singapores.html
http://www.navalnews.com/event-news/imdex-asia-2019/2019/05/imdex-2019-damen-to-answer-singapores-mrcv-requirement-with-fit-for-purpose-crossover-design/
“If the Formidables are future proof and big enough to field all the unmanned systems, singapore would not plan for the bigger Multi-Role Combat Vessel (MRCV), and would be enough just to build more improved Formidables instead.”
The Formidables do have growth potential. In addition to systems that are still very current, there is a mission bay that can host additional missiles, additional RHIBs, USVs and presumably future modules. The baseline crew is small and there is ready room for additional crew. The ships have already received several upgrades.
Obviously it was not designed for a range of future UAVs and AUVs, but the point is a 3,000 tonne class ship can accommodate them with the appropriate design choices. There is no need to go right to 6,000 tonnes.
On the other hand, it has been claimed that our Gowinds can’t even take longer missile cells, not that I’m convinced it’s the case.
@ AM
Show me a 3,000 tonne frigate design that can have something like this
http://cdn-statics.defesaaereanaval.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Babcock-Arrowhead140.jpg
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Arrowhead-140-Type-31.jpg
With the formidables, you actually cannot carry all the things at the same time. Want more boats, usvs? Missile modules need to be taken out. UAVs? Can it fit both helicopter and UAV at the same time?
And remember, most of expensive stuff is trying to make custom components and hardwares to fit confined spaces. You can pick and choose existing mass produced components and hardwares as you dont have space constraints.
Also remember this large ship can be had for the price of our current gowinds.
“Show me a 3,000 tonne frigate design that can have something like this”
“With the formidables, you actually cannot carry all the things at the same time. Want more boats, usvs? Missile modules need to be taken out. UAVs? Can it fit both helicopter and UAV at the same time?”
Formidable’s armament is already similar or greater, with 32 SAMs and up to 24 ASMs (six stacks of 4 Harpoons each) in the mission bay. Or you can have two RHIBs/USVs, a crane and 8 ASMs. This space is larger than the corresponding deck on many larger ships, such as FREMM.
https://coffeenbullets.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/sec-3980.jpg
There are three reserved spaces above the hangar where some units have had torpedo decoys and autocannon placed. If the mission bay space is needed, ASMs can be placed there with some modification (other navies place SAMs and CIWS there). There’s also an entirely separate boat bay. Equally important is it functions with a small core crew and retains the quarters for more, so additional mission crew can be embarked without reducing endurance by much. This was a conscious effort since the original Lafayette class (a light patrol frigate) has a larger crew.
I did not say the Formdables per se can have their cake and eat it, but rather that it comes close- and a 3,000 tonne frigate designed with today’s mission in mind can.
@…
And you can feel free to believe what you want.
The point of mission modules is flexibility. The purpose isn’t to mount them permanently onto any particular ship but to share needed modules on any available ships. Another is to extend the capabilities far above the ship class could do (ie a Carrier killer LMS with the right missile module). Another is future proofing, whereby an outdated module could be replaced without costly updating all the ships.
@AM
If there is a chance to mount the VLS launcher above the deckline (ie Type 23 frigate), it could hold longer missile types.
@ joe
” The point of mission modules is flexibility ”
There is no point of talking about flexibility when there is no space for stuff in the first place. Iver Huidfeldts are one of the most modular frigates available right now, with weapons and modules that can be swapped in a matter of hours. Space on a 3,000 ton ship is very limited. For example, if you want to carry the pneumatic launcher and skyhook retrieval system for the Scaneagle UAV, if you have a small hangar, how are you going to carry a helicopter?
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DL6ctoeV4AAC3he.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/ScanEagle_recovery_on_USS_Oscar_Austin.jpg
And if you have just 1 or 2 boat davits, how can you carry the USV? Can you go out to sea carrying USV while leaving the RHIB at home?
http://static.1sapp.com/qupost/images/2019/12/30/1577670164679533523water.jpg
Do we know where we are going to source ‘Mission Modules’ for our LMS yet? Who actually sells them?
The rsn managed to get the entire scaneagle system on the victory class corvette which had limited deck space.
@ anon
That required the removal of all ASW equipment from the ships, as it uses spaces previously equipped with them.
This is a conceptual suggestion and I’m not saying it can definitely be done.
Suppose you start with the Formidable design and add a roof to the mission bay (the Sings call it the SSM deck). You now have a spacious, enclosed mission bay that is apparently the same size as the one on the Type 26. You can add doors on both sides if you want. The roof becomes your new SSM deck. You can add walls to reduce the RCS if you want.
Formidable:
https://coffeenbullets.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/sec-3980.jpg
https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Singapore-Navy/Frigate/72-RSS-Stalwart-photo-004.jpg
Type 26:
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Inside-the-mission-Bay-type-26-frigate-1014×487.jpg
Good that the mission bay links up with the helo hangar so that UAVs and other items can be brought in from the helo deck, landed by helo or by crane.
As for USVs, the preferred method is to have a boat bay and drive up recovery mechanisms in the stern. You can operate in rougher sea states than with a crane.
@ am
” Suppose you start with the Formidable design and add a roof to the mission bay (the Sings call it the SSM deck) ”
You will end up with the exact center section of the gowind (this is the shorter corvette version though)
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bd/00/9c/bd009cae26f7437300157201c828ffdd.jpg
The mission bay is the reason why the formidable could carry so much harpoons (up to 24). It would probably be unstable if you want to put that much weight so far up. Which is why gowinds have only 8 nsm up there.
While it looks the same, it cant have anywhere the space of the type 26 (same applies to the gowind really). For example, type 26 carries and hangars the merlin, which is a 20 tonne helicopter (as is the type 31 is capable of), while formidable carries a 10 tonne seahawk.
The formidable is 115m long and 16m wide (our gowinds should be around the same size as the formidables), while the type 26 is 150m long and 21m wide. So that is a big difference in size.
So putting a roof over the SSM deck isnt going to give the same space as the type 26. At best it would give the same space as our gowind while losing the capability to carry 24 harpoons.
” You can operate in rougher sea states than with a crane ”
It is a quicker launch system compared to a davit in calm seas. In rough seas the stern ramp is actually much more dangerous than a davit as the stern can break away from the sea surface.
“It would probably be unstable if you want to put that much weight so far up. Which is why gowinds have only 8 nsm up there.”
Maybe. There are upgraded ships with SSMs mounted high up. You might be willing to go with less than 24 rounds to get the use of the bay. Also has to be considered that the roof itself constitutes weight.
“While it looks the same, it cant have anywhere the space of the type 26”
The Type 26 is larger, but whether the mission bay is also larger would depend on the design choices made. For example, the FREMM which is a newer, larger ship than the Formidables, has no greater SSM capacity and no mission bay at all.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8d/2d/21/8d2d21d7f1f8efd77b4ce9381f0b2317.jpg
“You will end up with the exact center section of the gowind (this is the shorter corvette version though)”
We can’t assume there is any available space in the centre section of the Gowind. If there is, it won’t be anywhere as large. The centre section seems to be taken up by blast ducts for the SSM, boat bay and stack.
https://media.hotnews.ro/media_server1/image-2019-07-9-23246613-0-corveta-gowind-2500-configuratia-probabila-pentru-romania.png
Related reading
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/sea/the-hangars-on-the-hunter-class-frigates-are-inadequate
The immediate and utmost responsibility for him now is to speed up the lcs program..Lets see if he can ask the govt to give the additional fund needed to get back lcs program on the track
As im not the expert here, frigate is frigate, no matter if they are enlarged corvette or outright frigate from the start..our Lcs is good and adequate already with 16 sam and enough if not perfect sensor and radars..if it up to me, i like to add asw rocketlauncher on 3 ship and a solid ciws on 3 other ships if the space allowed them..our projected lcs is on par if not better than our neighbour’s except mybe for sg’s and the thai’s.
Devided between whether we need to get bigger frigates than lcs or not..My point although look like a joke is if we cant get a bigger frigates why dont we just add lcs..haha..so we get the numbers..
And still going into future i believe we still need a smaller corvette to complement the big boys.
@ AM
” There are upgraded ships with SSMs mounted high up ”
Yes like the type 31 even. But they are larger, heavier and wider. If you really want a flat roof on a formidable, probably 4 harpoons is the max. It is also why the gowinds has the nsm eating up space between the 2 boat bays, because of stability calculations. If to much weight up high, the boat will topple. So if you want to push your missiles high up on a 3000 tonne boat, you will actually end up similar to the gowind design. The very reason
Formidables traded a covered center section to be able to carry 24 harpoons without sacrificing stability.
” related reading ”
If even the huge type 26 is still wanting for space (which is able to store a 20ton helicopter like the type 31), how can you say a frigate half of that size can have enough space for all of the UAV and USV for future operations?
Or maybe no more additional lcs if we cant lower their per unit ceiling price (for additional batch 2 units)..Usd466m per ship ceiling price is kinda way too steep when we can get a much bigger and more capable ship cheaper than that..but my my for a 3100 tonnes ship that some ridiculous amout..and possibly can get higher when they are ready to enter service.
“If even the huge type 26 is still wanting for space (which is able to store a 20ton helicopter like the type 31), how can you say a frigate half of that size can have enough space for all of the UAV and USV for future operations?”
The Type 26 isn’t lacking space. What the link said is the hangar is large enough but not well designed and should be redesigned before it is produced for Australia. It says the helos are parked one in front of the other, the second helo must be kept in the mission bay and mentioned smaller ships that have better arrangements.
A 3000 tonne frigate cannot have two helos and a mission bay. But one helo and a mission bay is clearly within the realm of possibility if designed, just like how the Type 26 can be improved.
@ Firdaus
Yes we could get a bigger ship than the gowind for that price. But in the bigger scheme of things, I do think we need at least 9 Gowinds, with 6 in South China Sea and 3 based in Lumut. Then we could replace the 4 Lekiu/kasturi with something like the Type 31 at around the same price of the gowinds.
What we dont need IMO is a navy with 18 OPVs in addition to the frigates as the original 15 to 5 plan.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ship.jpg
What we need is a joint comprehensive maritime security plan to 2040, that includes TLDM and MMEA sea assets, with some TUDM and TDM tasks too.
For me i think we would be covered with at least 20 MMEA OPV (which could be bought at way cheaper prices than even the LMS) and at least 12 TLDM frigates by 2040. Allowing at least 10 large ships always on patrol on the seas (4 SCS sabah sarawak, 2 SCS peninsular, 2 Selat melaka/andaman, 1 ESSCOM, 1 others). This of course will be supported by smaller ships like the NGPC, LMS and FICs.
@ AM
” But one helo and a mission bay is clearly within the realm of possibility if designed… ”
Well the gowind as is already has a hangar for 10-12 ton helicopter (max NH90 size) and 2 boat bays for a boat around 6-7m in length. And that IMO would be a tight fit for future USV and UAV operations.
The Type 26 has a hangar for a 20 ton helicopter (EH101) which can be extended into the mission bay to fit 2 helicopter. The mission bay itself can fit 4 boats of around 10-12m in length.
The Type 31, has a hangar for a 20 ton helicopter, and 4 dedicated boat bays to fit a boat around 10m in length
https://i.redd.it/lrdg3t182qm31.png
The Type 26 is about 8000 tonne ship, the Type 31 6000 tonne ship and the gowind/formidable is about 3100 tonne ship. There is so much space in a ship the size of gowind/formidable, that it is impossible to fit things that a larger ship can, like a 20 ton helicopter for example. A hangar that can fit one 10 ton helicopter would struggle to fit both helicopters and UAVs inside it.
Funnily there is rumors that the 4D AESA NS100 radar for the Type 31 (which is the same radar on singaporean LMV) is much more advanced than the expensive artisan radar on Type 26. Australian an canadian Type 26 uses the different CEFAR 2 and AN/SPY-7(V)1 AEGIS radars instead.
http://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/database/d7/asset/document/ns100-v01_0.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_997_Artisan_radar
The mission bay on the Type 26 is about 20m wide and 15m long.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-1-design-and-development/
On the Formidable, it is about 15m wide and 15m long.
So the Formidable’s mission bay is smaller but it allocates proportionately more of the ship’s length to the it.
Ship stability.
Formidable with covered mission bay, with heavy overhead crane on the roof for movement of boats (currently the crane is bolted to the mission bay floor), with heavy harpoon canisters mounted above the roof of the mission bay. That will move the enter of gravity (CG) so far up that the ship with 3000 tonne displacement and 16m beam will topple in moderate waves. The reason why it is all bolted to the floor on the formidable design (lower CG), and why on the gowinds the missle is mounted mid-way through the boat bays. Why the Type 26 can? It is heavier (nearly 8000 tonnes) and wider, so in total the CG is still low.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Ship_stability.svg/2000px-Ship_stability.svg.png
If you want a covered boat bay, for a 3000 tonne ship, you will basically end up with the gowind, or the original lafayette design.
“That will move the enter of gravity (CG) so far up”
We can’t say without knowing the margin of buoyancy. The roof doesn’t have to be at the wall’s edge. Looking at the pic I posted, it can be lower than the edge and still give the bay a good internal height. It would be lower than many other parts of the superstructure.
For what it’s worth, the original Lafayette is a lighter ship but it has a high roof in that area and 8 Exocets on top of it.
I was talking about design choices not the Formidables per se. A 15x15m bay (on the Formidables or on a clean sheet 3000t+ design) might or might not be a “tight fit for future USV and UAV operations” but is better than no mission bay at all- which is the case with the Gowinds even though they are also 3000t+.
:If you want a covered boat bay, for a 3000 tonne ship, you will basically end up with the gowind, or the original lafayette design.”
We should ask what the space is used for on the Gowind.
Btw, have a look at this. What do you think is the point of partitioning the boat bay form the mission bay?
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-2-configuration-and-contents/
Say no to politician in the GLC!
But damage and the appointment has been done..look forward..and what the new chairman must look into deeply is:
1) To overcome the massive delays in LCS program.
2) This delay was CLEARLY shows the incompetency of our local shipbuilder ie BNS.And it was stated in parliment by both BN and PH gov.
3) To make a clear busines direction for BNS.
4) Weather to continue or not in persuing the gov about the Wuchang LMS program.
5) How they going to market the Kedah Batch II is up to new chairman really.
@ AM
” A 15x15m bay (on the Formidables or on a clean sheet 3000t+ design) might or might not be a “tight fit for future USV and UAV operations” but is better than no mission bay at all- which is the case with the Gowinds even though they are also 3000t+.”
” We should ask what the space is used for on the Gowind ”
Probably it is possible on the Formidable as it has a crew of only 71. La fayette has 141, our gowind 138. So the gowind needs double of the accommodation space of the formidable, and probably why it and la fayette cannot have something like the type 26.
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/French-Navy/Frigate-Corvette/F-710_DAT/La-Fayette-class-armament-03.jpg
” Btw, have a look at this. What do you think is the point of partitioning the boat bay form the mission bay? ”
The best is to have a combined hangar-mission bay like what is on the Type 26. But you need to take into account many variables, like engine location, engine uptake, engine exhaust, accommodation etc. to do something like this, more so if you attempt to recreate it on a 3000 tonne ship.