SHAH ALAM: KD Terengganu sailing the waves again. Back in June 2019, Malaysian Defence wrote that KD Terengganu -pennant number 174 – will undergo a refit at the Boustead Naval Shipyard in Lumut, Perak. BNS announced it got the RM96 million contract in an announcement to Bursa Malaysia.
Late last year, Terengganu, could be seen during the RMN Open Day, tied up next to the BNS facility together with KD Kasturi. Terengganu did not have to wait long there as BNS officially handed over the ship back to RMN on February 23. RMN on April 16 announced that Terengganu had obtained the five-star rating during her Operational Readiness Evolution (ORE) conducted from April 12 to 15, after a period of work up following the refit.
As Terengganu is 14 years old – she was commissioned on December 8, 2009, the refit conducted on her could be characterised as a mid-life one.
It is unclear whether RMN had installed new equipment on board. That said she may well be the first Kedah class ship to be installed with a new Radar-Electronic Support Measures (RESM) as reported by Malaysian Defence last January.
As one of the nicest looking ship in RMN courtesy of the recently completed refit, it is likely that Terengganu will take part in LIMA 2023 to be held in Langkawi this May. Hopefully, I will get better pictures of her at anchor in Langkawi.
Terengganu and her sister ship, KD Pahang are based at RMN ‘s first regional headquarters in Kuantan, Pahang. The rest of the PV17 squadron are based at the Kota Kinabalu naval headquarters in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Both ships are routinely tasked to Eastern Fleet command tasking though.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
@ marhalim
“in the original post I mentioned the Gem Eletronic EO turret which is wrong”
Actually you are right marhalim. There is a Gem Elettronica EO turret on KD Terengganu
But the Gem Elettronica EO turret is not for the 76mm gun, instead it is installed for the rear 30 mm Breda-Mauser.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/KDtD.jpg
In the picture you can see the EO turret beneath the NORSAT satcom dome, covered with a tarpaulin with a big blue Gem Elettronica logo on it.
Previously the Rheinmetall TMEO is installed at the same location.
So how many Kedah class ships that has gone through similar 15 year refit?
KD Terengganu is one. What about others?
So this would mean that it would be 15 more years before another major refit?
AFAIK Kedah, no idea whether RMN will keep to the schedule really
Actually, what is the most probable or likely weaponry upgrade that the Kedah class could get? In the sense of what the ship itself (physically, electrically, mechanically, etc.) could handle without breaking the bank? For example, we can exclude SAM and SSM due to equipment and installation costs.
VSHORADs such the Mistral Simbad launchers. Laser guided rockets fired from LIG Next 1 rocket launchers like South Korea, Saudis and UAE/
The problem with equipping any weapons would likely be opportunity cost as those missiles have 30 years shelf life while the ship is already 15 years old. Either find a Preloved missiles or commit to using the Kedah fir at least 50 years I guess to make it worthwhile.
kel – ”Actually, what is the most probable or likely weaponry upgrade that the Kedah class could get?”
Look at a pic and ask yourself how much free deck space there is and how much below deck free space there is? From the onset it was designed for a non deck penetrating system in the B position [RAM] and 4 ASMs amidships [Exocets]. Little to no free space for anything beyond that.
kel ”installation costs.”
It’s not ”installation costs” which is the concern but integration/certification and any redesign/regeneering work.
Sorry this is a bit of topic. I think Kel mentioned this and I checked: the budget for the LMS batch 2 is $524 million for 3 ships, so it’s $175 million per ship. That would mean the ADA class at $250 million per ship is over budget. So is the C92 at I believe $225 mil per ship. The only other Turkish possibility is the Dearsan C74. I wonder if the RMN will go for a variant of the C74…
“B position [RAM] and 4 ASMs amidships [Exocets]”
If we’re going Korean all out, the ASM could mount 4x LIG CSTAR or Sea Dragon.
@Zaft
“while the ship is already 15 years old. commit to using the Kedah fir at least 50 years”
Much the same with FAC & PC fleet, TLDM could rehull & refresh the Kedahs if they saw there were benefits from the OP program, extending further the ships life past its due date.
Fitted with RAMsys and SSM?
Nope
Far – ”Fitted with RAMsys and SSM?”
That was the plan but it never happened. The ship has just enough space for a RAM launcher and 4 MM-40s and both are integrated to COSYSs and the directors the ship was fitted with. The B position meant for RAM can only take a non deck penetrating system.
”If we’re going Korean all out, the ASM could mount 4x LIG CSTAR or Sea Dragon.”
As it stands there is little likelihood of them being armed as the government had ulcers when presented with the prices associated with arming them [2 feasibility studies were performed and presented] and the RMN would rather channel what funds there are towards the Batch 2s and other things.
Joe “Much the same with FAC & PC fleet, TLDM could rehull & refresh the Kedahs if they saw there were benefits from the OP program, extending further the ships life past its due date”
If rehulling is possible then the next question to ask is whether to just pop an Exocet in it or pay for NSM Intergration cost.
Tom tom “That would mean the ADA class at $250 million per ship”
250 mil Ish per ship including R&D for 4 ship based on Pakistani contract or 250 mil Ish per ship including R&D for the 1st ‘kosong’ hulls but not including weapons & weapons Intergration cost based on the Ukrainian contract.
Guess it does depend on whether or not erdagon can give kawan kawan price. Technically they should get MYR 3 bilion from the now postponed 4×4 & SPH program. Thus They could either get the same amount of money but lower profit by selling the Ada instead or they could just risk losing it all.
“channel what funds there are towards the Batch 2”
It will have to depend on how creative TLDM can justify which fund to get. If to get from DE budget, they won’t as its best saved to buy new ships/choppers but if they could wriggle it into the OE as they did with the OP program, they would likely be more enthusiastic to fully armed the Kedahs.
@Zaft
“whether to just pop an Exocet in it or pay for NSM”
Rehulling would have to come much later, hopefully when the ship is fully armed. As it is, its only in its midlife for now. No one talks about hip replacements due to old age when they are in their 40s right?
zaft – ”ask is whether to just pop an Exocet in it or pay for NSM Intergration cost.”
Wrong question. The question which is asked [I know this BTW and is not a ”personal opinion”] whether spending the needed cash on the class is a good return of investment rather spending it on newer or more urgently needed kit. As far as the RMN is concerned; unless extra cash is allocated; it would much rather channel funds towards kit like the Batch 2s.
zaft – ”Guess it does depend on whether or not erdagon can give kawan kawan price.”
No it depends on how serious we are in buying and negotiating. It has zero to do with the so call ” kawan kawan” or ”buddy/best mates/chums” shite. Erdogan and Anwar have far more important things to do and it’s not as if we’re buying in large quantities.
zaft – ”ask is whether to just pop an Exocet in it or pay for NSM Intergration cost.”
Wrong question. The question which is asked [I know this BTW and is not a ”personal opinion”] whether spending the needed cash on the class is a good return of investment rather spending it on newer or more urgently needed kit.
As far as the RMN is concerned; unless extra cash is allocated; it would much rather channel funds towards kit like the Batch 2s.
zaft – ”Guess it does depend on whether or not erdagon can give kawan kawan price.”
No it depends on how serious we are in buying and negotiating. It has zero to do with the so call ” kawan kawan” or ”buddy/best mates/chums” shite. Erdogan and Anwar have far more important things to do and it’s not as if we’re buying in large quantities.
Not every ship is built the same.
Kedah class was designed with heavily built scantlings. They would be the boats that needs rehulling the least.
The vospers OP for example, reused the original hull but mated with redesigned superstructure. The original superstructure designed in the early 60s was very cramped.
Also the right question to ask is whether the Kedah class can even be tasked as a proper corvette? Can it now in the 2020s bring the fight to other corvettes or frigates? Yes if armed with NSM it can attack other corvettes or frigates but can it take an attack and survive? If the answer is no, then better leave it as an OPV
A ship that design to prioritise survivability like the gowind,meko 100 & ada would often do so at the opportunity cost of inability to be ‘multipurposed’ like the sigma, meko a100, Mogami & absalon.
Is the ship operated too far away from AF umbrella cover & thus survivality must be emphasized?
If it does & we get platforms that priorities survivalist how exactly is the navy going to go about doing other tasks like MCM, mineslaying & so on. If the answer is let buy more ship to do those task while also getting more surface combatants to act as escorts where exactly is the money going to comes from? Why not do what everyone else is doing that is to get a multipurpose surface combatants?
… – “Not every ship is built the same”
Not every car, bus, lorry, tractor, train, forklift, plane, helicopter, UAS and space shuttle is “built the same. Yes people are aware of this; like how they’re aware that the earth’s not flat.
… – “The original superstructure designed in the early 60s was very cramped”
It was designed for coastal patrol which it what it was used for during the Confrontation but after the 1979 declaration we used it for EEZ patrols which it was not designed for.
… – “Also the right question to ask is whether the Kedah class can even be tasked as a proper corvette?”
A “proper corvette”? Holy heavens. What’s your personal definition of a “corvette” and what roles do you see a “corvette” performing? Subjective. Not written in stone or holy writ. What’s a “proper corvette” would depend on which navy one asks and what they see their “corvettes” doing under specific operational requirements and conditions; i.e. the IN’s Koras have 16 Urans and V-SHORADs and the RTN’s Rattanakosin’s have\had Aspide and 4 ASMs; both are “corvettes” but none “proper” per see because a “proper corvette” is subjective.
… – “If the answer is no, then better leave it as an OPV”.”
You are generalising and unnecessarily convolution things; not only that but you’ve touched on this theme before. You overlook key the facts that from Day One the class was intended to be armed for self defence and to operate in roles suited for them. They were not expected to go against heavier armed opponents and if needed were expected to operate alongside heavier armed friendly frigates [a remainder: during the period the RMN’s Team A was planned to comprise 6 Lekius]. Just like how nobody would expect a light tank and a LCA to respectively go up against a MBT or a MRCA on a level playing field or a Panzer Korps against the 1st Ukrainian Front.
How well missile armed Kedahs would perform in time if war and whether it could “survive” would quite plainly obviously depend on what the threat level was; whether the ships were operating on their own; etc. Placed in an unfavourable position even a Ticonderoga cruiser or the Battlestar Galactica might be found wanting.
Zaft – “A ship that design to prioritise survivability like the gowind,meko 100 & ada”
Where and how on earth or heaven’s white roses did you get this notion? Very few navies; including most NATO ones can a afford to really splurge on DC; i.e. the Dutch Seven Provinces are separated into various compartments; each of which can take a direct hit from an Exocet sized ASM.
Zaft – “Why not do what everyone else is doing that is to get a multipurpose surface combatants”
What are you on about?
Every single missile armed corvette and we’ve bought for the last few decades was/is a “multi role” combatant; irrespective of the fact that some lack a AAW capability. Only the missile armed FACs were not “multi role” in line with their primary wartime role of sea denial.
Survivability? Multipurpose? What are you trying to say? Or as usual you don’t understand what others are talking about?
It is about the ability to execute the mission you are assigned to do.
If a ship is assigned to do corvette missions, can it take the fight to other corvettes or frigates? Or will it be sunk trying to do so?
A ship assigned to do MCM will take the fight to mines, not other frigates. If there is a minefield in the water, there is no reason an enemy frigate will be in the same area (as it would be killed by the mines), so it would be just between the MCM and the mines. If there is an enemy frigate nearby, its either the MCM cannot be there, or the enemy frigate would be eliminated by the same tactic that sunk the HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales in 1941 (by air power, and nowdays with MRCA shooting long range anti ship missiles from multiple directions simultaneously to saturate the frigate defence systems)
Adding more systems on a frigate to complement its main mission, for example adding UAVs to enhance its targeting and situational awareness capability would be a natural thing to do.
Adding capabilities such as MCM to a frigate would not add, but complicates the things a frigate need to do. With current modular and unmanned MCM tech, many countries are moving towards just using off the shelf oil and gas vessels to be the mothership of their MCM equipments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Stirling_Castle
“If there is a minefield in the water, there is no reason an enemy frigate will be in the same area (as it would be killed by the mines), so it would be just between the MCM and the mines.”
The enemy frigate could be on the periphery or the minefield could be covered by other assets. Whether at land or sea a minefield left on its own enables the enemy to sweep the area unhindered; i.e. a minefield on land would ideally be covered by MG fire.
“would be eliminated by the same tactic that sunk the HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales in 1941”
The famous demonstration by Billy Mitchell and the raid on Taranto [which the Japs watched closely] were early demonstrations of the potential of airpower against capital ships. Force Z originally was supposed to include a carrier but she ran aground before she could join Repulse and Prince of Wales.
Azlan “Where and how on earth or heaven’s white roses did you get this notion? Very few navies; including most NATO ones can a afford to really splurge on DC; i.e. the Dutch Seven Provinces are separated into various compartments; each of which can take a direct hit from an Exocet sized ASM.”
A ship that design with a big space to be able to accommodate TEU module, UAV,UUV & USV are obviously not going fair better under attack compared to ship that is designed not to have such requirements. It doesn’t mean a ship that design to carry TEU, UAV & UUV going to sink with just a single Exocet.
@KC Wong
If you mines an area and the other guy is attempting to remove it. What would you do? Just let them do so? If the other party trying to mines an area what you do. Waited until they do so and only then send out your MCM to clear it?
KC Wong “Adding capabilities such as MCM to a frigate would not add, but complicates the things a frigate need to do. With current modular and unmanned MCM tech, many countries are moving towards just using off the shelf oil and gas vessels to be the mothership of their MCM equipments”
Sure, the MRCV, mogami & APF OPV are very complicated.
What so complicated with carrying USV,UUV,UAV for MCM on an actual surface combatants rather than buying 2 ship even if the other one is a ‘off the shelf’ buy probably would sink rather quickly ex O&G vessels. Not to mention the off the shelf O&G vessel still need crew, maintainence, parts & so on.
Zaft,
So if you work in a factory, can you be the HR, production engineer, Quality supervisor and the accountant all at the same time?
Also the mogami cannot do MCM. It can lay mines. Two very distinct tasks.
Zaft – “. It doesn’t mean a ship that design to carry TEU, UAV & UUV going to sink with just a single Exocet”
No and nobody suggested that. You’ve missed the point again and are going off track yet again. If meaningful discussion is your intent: stick to the script and make an attempt to understand what you’re talking about.
KC Wong “Also the mogami cannot do MCM. It can lay mines. Two very distinct tasks”
It can or at least most publications says it could. Modern MCM or at least the one that Thales & Saab designed are not organic to any ship. Unlike the old way of MCM, newer MCM Don’t expect the ship to enter the minesfield. It would just carry the UAV,UUV & USV near the minesfield thus it utilizes any vessels of opportunity be it a surface combatants or a commercial ship. The controller for those UAV,UUV & USV are either house in teu modules that can be carried onboard or in Thales case it could just be house in a permeable onshore facilities & control remotely through satellite.
The Mogami,MRCV, LMV, HDP 2200 are all designs with that in mind and have the necessary deck space to carry the TEU as well as facilities to carry the USV,UAV & UUV to site. Thus could do both MCM & mineslaying and be able to defend themselves while doing so. But obviously it comes at the opportunity cost of ‘survivality’.
You could think of survivality as the extreme end of the spectrum while multirole sit at the other. Most ship is designed alongside those spectrum.
You could say the absalon is nearer to the multirole end of the spectrum, it could carry ground vehicle, Carry A lot of teu modules, deployed mines and so on while it derivatives the iver huitfeldt sit nearer to the other end of the spectrum.
@Zaft
“The controller for those UAV,UUV & USV are either house in teu modules”
The Keris class could be adapted for such a role transformation once the fully fitted LMS2 replaces these on the frontline, replacing the Mahamiru vessels.
As for survivability, naval ships of certain size has damage control compartmentalisation and automated fire suppression system. Most naval ships these days have hulls that aren’t armoured to take a hit which is why you can see the hull “waffle” appearance or irregular smooth surface.
If the on and on about multi role is about a ship not designated as the principal combatant of the fleet, then yes, it makes sense to make a multi role ship that can be retrofitted to support the main combat ship. If the proposal is we dont need a dedicated combat ship, and should aim for all ships to be multirole including able to mount MCMV missions, then its a wrong proposal The Dutch, Singapore, US and China navies all have such multi role ships that could do MCMV duties. Mogami and Absalon and RSN’s MRCV are not its main combatants. DDG51, FFGX, La Fayette, Gowind, non-Mogami JMSDF, almost all PLAN frigates and above, are pure combat ships never assigned MCMV duties. For such ships you want to maximise the offensive and defensive potential of the ship and its crew, not encumber it with utility roles. If a ship is the primary air defence ship of the fleet or task force, you will not ask it to stay on watch and then ask it to hunt mines. Or if you ask a ship to hunt mines, you will not encumber it with an air defence role. Ships will perform sub optimally in both roles. So either its confusion about what a combat ship really is, or its proposing a new type of ship for RMN. As to why modular systems dont really work in combat situations, read up USN’s assessment of its LCS program.
Kel – “If the proposal is we dont need a dedicated combat ship, and should aim for all ships to be multirole including able to mount MCMV missions, then its a wrong proposal”
If that’s the proposal then it displays a lack of understanding on the subject matter.
Kel – “As to why modular systems dont really work in combat situations”
Depends on what “combat situations”. What context, under what specific conditions?
This issue has been dealt with here in the past; extensively. Modular payloads are not a panacea; some navies swear by them; others don’t. Depends on the navy; it’s preference and operational requirements. There are pros and cons: trade offs are required .
There is no black/white or right/wrong; merely what may work for individual navies. People simplitically and conveniently assume that just because the modular payload approach has worked for some navies; it’s the same for others. Not the case at all.
Posting posts in paragraphs rather than a large lump make them easier to digest.
“you can see the hull “waffle” appearance or irregular smooth surface”
Heavier hull “waffle” appearance = lighter the scantlings of the boat.
When i say not all boats are built the same and i specifically mention about scantlings, this is one of the effects that can be seen. I can see most don’t know what scantlings even mean, and replied about the world is not flat and whatnot.
The term “scantling” refers to the determination of geometrical dimensions (such as wall thickness and sectional modules) for a structural component/system. The initial scantling design is one of the most important and challenging tasks throughout the entire naval structural design process.
Some ships like the laksamana and FACs are designed with light scantlings, and some like the Kedah class are designed with heavy scantlings. So not all ships must have rehulling to extend their lives. Some ships, like the ex-USCG Hamilton class cutters have strong hulls that each single one is still operational, all now nearly 60 years old.
… – “. I can see most don’t know what scantlings even mean”
So you and only you are enlightened enough to understand? Need a pat on the back or songs of praise? Where did I indicate I didn’t know what it means: my conversation was centred on something else.
… – “Some ships like the laksamana and FACs are designed with light scantlings, and some like the Kedah class are designed with heavy scantlings”
Thanks for the nugget. Different ships are built at different periods; under different design techniques and philosophies: for different requirements; with different level of tolerances; etc.
… – “replied about the world is not flat and whatnot”
You evidently see things which are visible only to you. If able to; Look at the context it which it was said instead of veering of grid. BTW there was no “whatnot” [whatever that means].
I would not reply cynically to another person about flat earth nonsense as if they don’t know what explicitly they are talking about if i understand what scantling means.
@hulubalang
“ex-USCG Hamilton class cutters have strong hulls that each single one is still operational, all now nearly 60 years old.”
Naval ships from previous eras indeed have stronger hulls, you’d never seen such hull waffling in pictures of ships up to postWW2, where hulls were seen to be smooth and strong as it was then designed to withstand incoming rounds from the equivalent calibre of the ship’s own guns. One side benefits as you pointed out, the older ships could operate for much longer than newer generation of warships.
…,
Yes you’re a paragon of knowledge aren’t you. Before whining why don’t you see the context of what was written.
”. One side benefits as you pointed out, the older ships could operate for much longer than newer generation of warships.”
A case in point would be the FACs; much older but whose hulls lasted far longer than the younger Laksamanas.
I am under the impression that navies retired & get newer ship not because the ship can’t float anymore but after 30 years a said country would face changes to its threats environment and thus would operate differently & thus the older ship as a platform is deem obsolete to face current/future challenges.
The thickness of the steel in the hulls likely doesn’t carry much weight in whether or not it would continue in service pass 30 years or not as Rehulling cost is relatively cheap compared to modernization cost because steel are cheap but R&D, weapons & equipment are not.
Zaft – ‘I am under the impression that navies retired & get newer ship not because the ship can’t float anymore but after 30 years a said country would face changes ‘
A ship can be progressively upgraded but things will reach a stage where it might be more cost effective to just buy new or it might reach a stage where a navy has no choice but to conduct certain upgrades/modifications [the bare minimum] in order to keep a ship operational. As for age; note that even the USN still has surface combatants which were laid down in the 1980’s but which have benefited from progressive upgrades.
zaft – ”he thickness of the steel in the hulls likely doesn’t carry much weight”
The thickness of the steel; how much mileage the hull has; what the ship was designed to do; how well its been maintained; the grade of steel; quality of build; etc, all play a part. Different countries/yards have different design philosophies and techniques and different areas of importance they place when constructing a ship.