SHAH ALAM: In the release on KD Perkasa, RMN Chief Engineer Rear Admiral Mohd Shaiful Adli Chung stated local shipyard are fully capable of building ships without outside help apart from a full fledge combat management system (CMS).
He also said several local design houses, are capable designing ships, especially non-combatants. He stated that the procurement of ships locally was cheaper, albeit without the CMS. One-third the cost of building a ship locally from a foreign design and one-fourth the price of foreign-built and designed hull. (See below).
Success Story OP KD PERKASA ini membuktikan bahawa:
1. Limbungan tempatan berkeupayaan penuh untuk membina kapal bersaiz kurang dari 80 meter tanpa perlu bantuan pihak luar negara, kecuali full-fledged sistem kombat.
2. Terdapat beberapa design-house tempatan yang mampu merekabentuk kapal dengan baik, khususnya kapal jenis non-combatant.
3. Rekabentuk in-house membolehkan lebih banyak produk pribumi (indigenous product) serta bahan tempatan yang type approved digunapakai, berbanding jika menggunakan rekabentuk limbungan luar negara yang dikesan menetapkan syarat yang ketat.
4. Kos perolehan tanpa sistem kombat bagi sebuah kapal berdasarkan rekabentuk rakyat Malaysia dan dibina oleh limbungan tempatan adalah lebih kompetitif iaitu lebih kurang:
4.1 Satu pertiga (1/3) kos perolehan jika menggunakan rekabentuk luar negara, tetapi kapal dibina di Malaysia.
4.2 Satu perempat (1/4) kos perolehan jika berdasarkan rekabentuk limbungan luar negara dan kapal dibina di premis mereka.
5. Peningkatan penglibatan pemain industri Bumiputera di projek ini.
I cannot confirm the veracity of the Rear Admiral statement on the cost, but it must be noted that even if a ship is built locally to a foreign design, most of the major equipment and steel plates will still need to be imported.
For the record, apart from the LCS and Kedah class, two other foreign designs were built locally in recent times, namely the Damen 1800 OPV for the MMEA and the Gagah Samudera class, designed by DSME of South Korea, soon to be called Hanwha Ocean.
Anyhow, the MMEA OPV is 83 metre in length, with a width of 13.7 metre. The Samudera class ships are 76 metres long with a beam of 11 metres. I believed the MMEA OPV is not fitted with a CMS while the Samudera is fitted with the Hanwha Naval Shield CMS. The OPV cost RM246 million each, based on the contract price of RM738.9 million, announced on January 19, 2017.
The Samudera costs RM147 million each based on the contract price of RM294 million announced in 2011. That said the cost of both class of ships has increased around RM20 million to RM50 million each, due to the delays in their completion and commissioning.
For a corvette/light frigate size ship, the Hanwha Naval Shield CMS cost around US$5 million (RM22 million) per ship, based on the latest news about a contract with the Philippines Navy.
Several years ago, the-then Philippines Defence Secretary told the country’s parliament that the Thales Tacticos CMS cost US$7 million (RM31 million) per ship.
Based on the above figures, we can extrapolate that a Samudera sized ship – 76 metre in length – equipped for combat instead of a dedicated training ship with a 76mm gun, four SSM launchers and two twin VSHORAD launchers – may well cost around RM250 million if built locally. Add another RM30 million or so if a RAM missile launcher is fitted instead of the VSHORAD launchers. It will cost around the same price if built in South Korea, I believed.
If we were to build the military version of the Damen OPV – with higher DC controls and same weapon loadouts, it will cost around RM350 million or so. It will be the same price if we built it in Europe.
— Malaysian Defence.
View Comments (26)
That's assuming the ship is made using military grade steel and military ship standard. Ship made using civilian grade steel (of which we're capable of making) and aluminum would be cheaper to make
Aluminium is hard to work especially for the hull. And they need specialised welders.
In usual commercial world, if you buy a franchise, you have to buy the materials from the franchisor's list of supplier (which usually has been marked up). You cannot buy the material from other source even though its the same quality.
I would think if you buy a foreign design, not only you have to pay higher cost for the design, but also for all other materials like steel (which they will specify you need to buy from certain vendor at marked up prices). If you say you want to buy the steel from another cheaper vendor, the designers can wash hand and say they don't guarantee the quality.
Yes, that was the case with the MMEA OPV and Samudera class ships. It also happened with LCS and Kedah class, but in the roundabout way
As now we are explicitly discussing about price.
RAM is one of the most expensive CIWS missile out there. Each missile cost USD1 mil. So even the cost of a fully loaded RAM launcher (21 missiles) without considering of the cost of the launcher itself, that is at least USD21 mil or around RM94.5 million.
A reason why ADA class of Pakistan and Ukraine the RAM system is swapped with the Aselsan GOKDENIZ 35 mm CIWS, which is a cheaper option.
As for the ship itself, I believe we could build a copy of the Gagah Samudera at less than RM150 mil each.
Indonesia build their 80m OPV for BAKAMLA in Batam for a total Rupiah 601 miliar (billion) for 3 ships, which converts to today's money of around RM60.1 million for each ship.
https://daerah.sindonews.com/berita/1362449/194/berbiaya-rp601-miliar-bakamla-luncurkan-3-kapal-patroli-buatan-batam
https://bakamla.go.id/uploads/gallery/DJI_0069.JPG
I believed the Bakamla ships were also offered to us when they were looking around for an OPV, which of course went to THHE. That ship was supposed to be built at a new shipyard that was supposed to be set up, I believed in Pengkalan Chepa, Kelantan.
... - '' military ship standard''
'Military ship standard'' only entails a certain level of DC.
... - ''As now we are explicitly discussing about price.''
Something rotutinely done over the years; some have a penchant for.
... - ''RAM is one of the most expensive CIWS missile out there. ''
Never mind the price. What is RAM's measure of success compared to a gun based CIWS? I have no idea as it's yet to be tested for real. RAM actually is intended to be part of a multi tiered system but of course for some navies it's the only or main form of defence. What I do know is that a ship and it's crew are also expensive and take time and resources to replace; thus the price of a CIWS and whether it's ''expensive'' should take this into account.
As for missiles the only ones actually tested for real against incoming ASMs is Sea Dart [against Iraqi Silkworms] and Standard [against Houthi Chinese made ASMs]. Seawolf achieved success during trials against 4.4inch shells and against [non VLS version] Argie aircraft but never against ASMs.
P.S. Neither the MMEA's OPVs or the RMN's pair of South Korean training ships have a CMS; they have a FCS. For that matter neither did the Marikhs or the FACs.
It was Hanwha who said on record that it had supplied the CMS for the training ships. This was in response to the CMS issue in the Philippines Navy frigate.
Granted. My mistake.
"local design houses, are capable designing ships, especially non-combatants"
Maybe so but whats that got to do with TLDM. A ship with no combat roles should not have a place in their fleet. Even Kedahs, fitted as an OPV now, still could be rearmed for combat duties, but an OPV1800 in TLDM fleet has no role when the shooting starts as it has limited capacity for rearm.
"Samudera sized ship – 76 metre in length – equipped for combat"
Might just work since Samudera were from a military ship lineage but the issue is who holds the IP rights (I believe there is a local IP holder as with all our local constructions), and if we could restart production of a ship 10 years after the initial class were started, and with another shipyard. Another question if TLDM want such a ship, as they might prefer a bigger, more potent boat, in liew of waiting for LCS to complete and maybe no more further LCS follow on.
Ultimately, the question is not whether we should or should not build them here. We have the knowledge & manpower but the major failing isn't the human capital, its the unrealistic budget and inept management of the whole thing. Thats also when certain people see loopholes for them to make a profit themselves.
I did not mention the IP rights as it is superfluous to the discussion. Furthermore, it's a waste money really to own the IP rights.
''Maybe so but whats that got to do with TLDM. A ship with no combat roles should not have a place in their fleet.''
Maybe he's referring to target towing vessels; tug boats; a replacement for the FTVs, etc.
''Even Kedahs, fitted as an OPV now, still could be rearmed for combat duties''
They should but unless extra funds are allocated the RMN would prefer that what funds it has are channeled towards new assets. Also, as noted before the class only has deck space for a modest self capability in the form a non deck penetrating launcher in the B position and 4 ASMs amidships. Anything else would require redesign/engineering work which costs a lot and is why previous fesablity studies[one years ago and another more recently] which were sent for consideration went nowhere.
''an OPV1800 in TLDM fleet has no role when the shooting starts as it has limited capacity for rearm.''
Which is precisely why the RMN has no intention to get a guns armed only combatant [whether primary or secondary] or a OPV and why it fought so hard to ensure the LMS Batch 2s are fully fitted out; even if modestly.
''Thats also when certain people see loopholes for them to make a profit themselves.''
The very nature of the system enables ''certain people'' ''to make a profit themselves'' - defence procurement is part of the patronage system; as intended by a former Prime Minister and now part of the system.
"the IP rights as it is superfluous to the discussion"
Why I mention that is because, presumably there exist such an arrangement, if we want to continue making this class of ship, we need still to at least get the legal consent from the local IP holder even if the intention won't involve them. It doesn't matter if they (PSC?) no longer in the shipmaking business, as legally they own the local rights to the Samudera design.
Its like if you want to make new Lat comics, even tho the author has long retired, you still need to get his legal permission to draw & sell new creations, regardless the storyline is your original idea or the characters look significantly different from OG.
Unless of course the Govt owned the rights to the design, and has legal freedom to choose whichever shipyard it sees fit (a second level of legality that could restrict the Govt to the shipyard of choice and/or parts suppliers as dundun mentioned).
I do not think NGV Tech had purchased the IP rights of the Samudera class. Anyhow, the company was foreclosed by Maybank.
"Maybe he’s referring to target towing vessels"
Civvie boats, no issues as these are made in local yards for civilian use after all. And none of them require a CMS anyways. Perhaps he should have highlight on which yards could make naval warships fit for LMS2 and other combatants. That is TLDM role & main focus after all.
"the RMN would prefer that what funds it has are channeled towards new assets"
Of course but at least the Kedahs are FFBNW and could be uparmed when such is provided, they have the space and CMS at least. Damen OPV otoh has limited room for uparming.
"defence procurement is part of the patronage system"
This is true for everywhere else, we're not different. What made us fail is the overexpectation of making a purse from a p!gs ear for the price of paper. No one really cared how much money got siphoned if the project was successful.
... - This is true for everywhere else, we’re not different.''
Oh but we are ''different'' and if you take into account the various programmes which have gone ratshit over the years [I'm not referring to the LCS, NGOPV and other well known examples]; plus all the machinations [if you're aware]; you won't say we're ''not different''.
In other countries things tend to be delivered on schedule, on spec and within budget [yes I'm aware there are exceptions] and there are corrective mechanisms in place in addition to an opposition and press which asks the right questions.. Over here; like other sectors defence is part of the patronage system but quite often the end user and taxpayer gets buggered; not their money's worth. Not to mention the inability or unwillingness to learn from previous mistakes. Over here the needs of the end user and taxpayer is secondary and the notion that it's the government's duty of care to adequately fund the armed services is apparently lost; as is the notion that the armed services must get some level of commitment from their political masters in order to plan/adjust accordingly; is apparently missing from the narrative.
One country that has a similar track-record like MY is Oz. It is instructive to note that the Australian programmes that has no difficulties and delivered on time and on budget were/are those under FMS.