SHAH ALAM: In the previous article on the first MMEA boat to under the re-powering and refit programmer (RRP), there were many details that we did not know. Now further details were released following the delivery of KM Sebatik – pennant number 2958 – another Gemia class patrol boat which underwent the same programme.
According to a release by MMEA, Sebatik and five other MMEA patrol boats – including KM Peringgi – underwent the RRP in late 2022 under RM17.4 million budget allocated by the government – likely from the 2023 budget. This means the upgrading cost of each ship is around RM3.48 million.
Based on this, we can assume that the money allocated in the 2025 budget for the repowering and refit of six patrol boats will be around RM20 million. It is RM150 million actually (see the graphic below)
Under the RRP, majority of the patrol boats selected will have its major equipment from the main engines, generators, electronics, berthing facilities and others replaced with new ones. The upgraded ships will also be equipped with a RHIB to facilitate boarding of ships and search and rescue operations.
The KAA Oerlikon 20mm cannon on the Sebatik and Peringgi were also retained. The 20mm cannon were main the armament of the Gemia class which were PX patrol boats of the Marine Police which were transferred to MMEA – in the case of Sebatik since 2011. Sebatik RRP was conducted at the OBM Technic Sdn Bhd shipyard in Kuala Terengganu.
𝗞𝗠 𝗦𝗘𝗕𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗞 𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗜 𝗦𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔 𝗞𝗔𝗪𝗔𝗟 𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗜𝗥𝗔𝗡 𝗡𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗥𝗔
.
𝗞𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗔 𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗚𝗚𝗔𝗡𝗨, 𝟮𝟮 𝗢𝗸𝘁𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿 – Kapal Peronda Agensi Penguatkuasaan Maritim Malaysia (Maritim Malaysia), Kapal Maritim (KM) SEBATIK hari ini bakal kembali menggalas tanggungjawab dalam memastikan keamanan dan kesejahteraan perairan negara selepas hampir dua tahun menjalani proses repowering jentera utama dan refit di Limbungan OBM Technic Sdn Bhd, Kuala Terengganu.
Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Logistik Maritim Malaysia, Laksamana Madya Maritim Datuk Saiful Lizan bin Ibrahim berkata program repowering dan refit merupakan inisiatif yang diambil oleh Maritim Malaysia bagi meningkatkan jangka hayat kapal yang membabitkan proses modenisasi bagi kapal-kapal yang telah berusia dengan penambahbaikan serta pertukaran sebahagian besar komponen kapal, antaranya jentera utama, janakuasa, sistem elektronik, akamodasi dan lain-lain.
Beliau berkata demikian dalam Majlis Penyerahan KM SEBATIK bagi Perolehan Repowering Jentera Utama Dan Refit yang berlangsung di Limbungan OBM Technic Sdn. Bhd, Kuala Terengganu, hari ini.
Kapal berukuran 29 meter panjang dengan lebar 6 meter dan seberat 150 tan ini telah dibina di Penang Shipbuilding Corporation Sdn Bhd pada tahun 1982 bagi kegunaan Pasukan Polis Marin ketika itu dengan panggilan PX33.
Kapal berkenaan kemudiannya ini diserahkan kepada Maritim Malaysia bagi meneruskan khidmat baktinya kepada negara bermula pada tahun 2011 dan telah dikelaskan sebagai kapal peronda kelas Gemia dengan menggunakan nombor pennant 2958.
Setelah hampir 40 tahun menabur bakti, KM SEBATIK dilihat perlu menjalani pembaikan demi memastikan kesiagaan aset berkenaan bagi sebarang kemungkinan khususnya melibatkan keselamatan perairan negara.
Program repowering jentera utama dan refit bagi KM SEBATIK telah berjalan selama 22 bulan bermula Disember 2022 lalu antaranya membabitkan penukaran sistem jentera utama yang baharu iaitu model CUMMINS QSK60 bagi mengantikan jentera utama yang lama untuk mencapai kelajuan yang lebih tinggi serta penggunaan bahan bakar yang lebih efisien, pemasangan sistem Mist Eliminator Louvre Engine Room terbaharu bagi membantu melancarkan sistem pengudaraan di dalam bilik jentera serta dilengkapkan dengan peralatan komunikasi dan navigasi yang lebih moden dan berteknologi tinggi seperti marine radar SIMRAD X Band bagi memastikan pemantauan keselamatan dan kesejahteraan maritim secara lebih meluas.
“Sistem persenjataan utama kapal iaitu meriam 20mm KAA Oerlikon turut dikekalkan dan disenggara agar berada pada tahap terbaik, latihan teori pengendalian dan praktikal telah diberikan kepada kru di samping latihan penembakan meriam membabitkan aset-aset dari kelas yang sama di Perairan Terengganu dalam masa terdekat untuk memastikan keupayaan serta kebolehfungsian meriam jenis ini,” ujarnya lagi.
Terdahulu Datuk Saiful Lizan turut merakamkan ucapan terima kasih kepada Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN), Kementerian Kewangan (MOF) dan juga Kementerian Ekonomi atas sokongan yang telah diberikan kepada Maritim Malaysia selama ini.
KM SEBATIK merupakan salah satu daripada lima aset yang menjalani Program Repowering Jentera Utama dan Refit di mana pada hujung tahun 2022, Kerajaan telah memberikan suntikan peruntukan berjumlah RM17.4 juta bagi memastikan projek repowering jentera utama dan refit dapat dilaksanakan.
Meanwhile, it appears that KM Pekan, one of the two OPVs donated by Japan to MMEA, is active and now berthed at the Kuantan port. This is based on two social media posts on her within the last three days.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
@ marhalim
That is not a rust line.
It is just a normal dirty stain to a white painted hull caused by staying too long in the muddy river water.
If the antifouling bottom paint is painted 1-2 inch higher, the stain would not be too obvious.
It can be cleaned by pressure wash no issues.
Is it worthwhile to upgrade each boat for RM3.5m when a new one would be around the same figure?
The Indonesian KCR is around RM8.6m
The government is unwilling to pay for new build and willing to pay the amount to local shipyards. Buying the KCR meant that we will paying foreign companies money.
>KCR
>aluminium hull
wow what a load of nothing
KCR is RM8.6 mil? I think that should be USD, not RM, and that is for the first few early KCR just the ship w/o weapons , radar, FCR or combat systems
RM3.5m (less than USD0.85 mil) for a refit of a 29m boat with new engines, new radar and navigation electronics is a reasonable price.
A brand new boat, such as the PDRM PA50 25m patrol boat would cost around USD3.3 mil (price in 2009)
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/PDRM.jpg
The KM Sebatik is a Brooke Marine 29m patrol boat design ordered in 1980 for PDRM from PSC shipyard Pulau Jerejak. Delivered to PDRM as PX33 (Juang) in 1982.
This class of boats has been sucessfully built n exported to middle eas5 customers by our Sarawak builders. Just built new ones
@hulubalang It could be chepaer if they went with Yanmar marine engine and Furuno radar. I don’t trust chinese made marine engine or radar so even if we can go even lower, Yanmar and Furuno combo is the lowest we should go
Alex – “. I don’t trust chinese made marine engine or radar”
There are high and low end radars. When it comes to missike and radar tech; the Chinese are quite advanced.
Alex – “, Yanmar and Furuno combo is the lowest we should go”
Both are hardly “cutting edge” but from those with direct experience using them; reliable and do what they’re intended to do. Worth their cost. Same with low end or entry level Kelvin Hughes stuff.
On 2 kapal peronda generasi baharu for RM160 million. latest Bernama news article mentioned this as NGPC, so it seems that PMX maybe missread his script and said NGPV.
The original NGPC contract was for 6 boats, aselsan smash 30mm guns, FLIR turrets, Fulmar UAVs are for RM381.3 million back in 2015.
I believe we could get at least 3 40m boat for RM160 million.
Below picture is the FCS 4008 Patrol built by DAMEN Antalya Turkiye for Romanian Border Guard. It would be a perfect ship for next batches of NGPCs.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGjck2AWcAAoWCC.jpg
Specs
Length – 41.2m
Top speed – 30 knots
range at TOP SPEED (yes not a typo) – 2,800nm. Yes it can run around chasing others at 30 knots for 2,800nm
British Royal Navy bought a similar FCS4008 as its experimental test vessel for just £7 million
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-takes-delivery-of-new-experimental-vessel/
To ensure a proper project control and build (no more failures like OPV 1800 project), this NGPC project for APMM could be embedded into PETRONAS Project Safina, leveraging PETRONAS expertise in shipbuilding project management, and using local shipyards that are to PETRONAS own exacting standards.
https://theedgemalaysia.com/content/advertise/bringing-waves-of-opportunity-for-malaysia-marine-industries
I was told that a tender will be held for the new NGPC. As with the OPV the matter is now with the ministry.
KDN can pass the project and budget to PETRONAS, and let PETRONAS manage it by adding the 2 NGPC into its own Project Safina.
PETRONAS has done this before, for BM5, BM6, KA Tun Azizan and PL Tun Sharifah Rodziah. So this is not something unprecedented.
… – “To ensure a proper project control and build (no more failures like OPV 1800 project), this NGPC project for APMM could be embedded into PETRONAS Project Safina”
Since that’s unlikely they should do what should have been done; due diligence to ensure the company awarded the contract is financially sound and to have someone watching over then from start to finish to ensure contractual obligations are met.
Assuming the MMEA has no issues with the existing design; follow on batches should be the same design. I don’t see why another design should be chosen; althought to me it looks top heavy.
The yard which built the original NGPC is on the verge of being closed down due to claims of unpaid taxes. I think MMEA is being cautious after what had happened to the OPV.
Whether or not they will use the same design is beyond me.
Staying with the same design matters if it is a complex warship, with complex and expensive systems and weapons, with specialised training to operate them.
It doesnt really matter if the ship is filled with commercial systems, and just nav radars and chartplotters.
What we need is for the next batch of NGPC to have more speed, range, endurance than the current 45m Bagan Datuk class NGPC.
Bagan Datuk Specs
Displacement 300 tonnes
Length 45 m (148 ft)
Beam 7.7 m (25 ft)
Draught 1.95 m (6.4 ft)
Propulsion 2 × 1,920 kW (2,570 hp) MTU engines
Speed 24.0 knots (44.4 km/h; 27.6 mph)
Range 2,000 nautical miles at 12.0 knots
Complement 41
Armament
1 × 30 mm Aselsan SMASH RWS
1-2 × 12.7 mm general purpose machine guns
Compare that to the FCS4008
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gap2BeXbMAAoSFT?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
A range of 2,800 nautical miles at max speed of 30 knots (that is already more than what the bagan datuk can do at 12 knots) means that it would easily have more than 5,000 nautical mile range (same as Gowind Frigates) if it goes slower, say 12 knots speed like the Bagan Datuk NGPC. So with additional food stores (say a dedicated 1/2TEU aka 10ft container on deck), it can be used for long endurance missions, even far offshore, if we are forced to.
If the 40m version can go that far, it is a reason why the 50m version is used for 90 days patrol in the harsh cold antarctic waters.
On the company; yet another local company going tits up; despite being granted a license to print money and most of the time; awarded contracts not on merit but due to the system of patronage. It’s never been a question of a lack of skilled, innovative and motivated local manpower but the upper management. Since the 1990’s there’s been a long list of companies which went tits up: leaving the MAF to pick up the pieces.
It’s no wonder many non Bumis have a condensending view of local companies and no wonder those in the know are such cynics. A shame because a handful of local companies actually perform. What’s a wonder is that many still buy hook, line and sinker the “local production” and “self sufficiency” myth or delusion.
… – “Staying with the same design matters if it is a complex warship”
I fail to see the logic in this. If the MMEA is satisfied with the existing design; no reason why it should go for another design.
… – “What we need is for the next batch of NGPC to have more speed, range, endurance”
… – “A range of 2,800 nautical miles at max speed of 30 knots (that is already more than what the bagan datuk can do at 12 knots) means that it would easily have more than 5,000 nautical mile range”
Firstly does that MMEA need a NGPC with “more speed, range, endurance” or does it rely on larger ships for that?
Before assuming that the MMEA needs something let’s first determine it actually has a requirement.
… – “It doesnt really matter if the ship is filled with commercial systems”
I believe this never was a matter of contention. .
… – ” used for 90 days patrol in the harsh cold antarctic waters”
Viking longboats crossed the Atlantic to North America and sailed as far as the Mediterranean.
@Hasnan:
“Is it worthwhile to upgrade each boat for RM3.5m when a new one would be around the same figure?”
Yes,you have a point.
All ATM branches need new ships. Menhan said there are 170 ships are ober 30 years old even the kasturis are 40 years old. This give us a clue that new ships are needed, but as always money issue always a hurdle. Altbough in short term maintaining old ships are effective but cost of maintenance getting higher and higher. Pending buying new ships will accumulate problems in the long terms.
@Dundun :
“>KCR
>aluminium hull”
KCR hull is made of high-tensile steel. The upper structure is alumunium. It is lighter and good against rust. Anyway, it is a KCR which is designed for patrol and FAC.
@Hulubalang:
“KCR is RM8.6 mil? I think that should be USD, not RM, and that is for the first few early KCR just the ship w/o weapons , radar, FCR or combat systems”
It is about $5 miliion for KCR 40m.
“say 12 knots speed like the Bagan Datuk NGPC. So with additional food stores (say a dedicated 1/2TEU aka 10ft container on deck), it can be used for long”
Every shipyard uses the same standard length measurement. How we designed every compartment inside will determine the pros and cons.
“What we need is for the next batch of NGPC to have more speed, range, endurance than the current 45m Bagan Datuk class NGPC”
It should be asked to the user. Why di we need endurance and speed for opv or patrol boat? MY water from east to west can be sailed in 3 days. We can add 3 days eztra for floating. It is good enough for 45m ships even for the crews mental health who will stay inside.
Those are 170 assets not just ships, though it include ships.
Romeo – ‘It should be asked to the user. Why di we need endurance and speed for opv or patrol boat? MY water from east to west can be sailed in 3 days”
Yes it’s what the user needs; not what looks and sounds great on paper Neither the RMN or MMEA have need for ships with a certain level of range and endurance for a good reason : wherever a ship is it’s never more than a couple of days sailing time to the nearest port/base. If a ship has to stay at sea longer there is emergency fuel, water and food for this contingency. It’s not as if we intend on running patrols in the Marianas or Aleutians. Not as if we’re going to be involved in a Cuban blockade scenario.
There’s a good practical reason why neither the RMN or MMEA have specifed a need for large ships [in this case my definition of large being over 4,000 tonnes] for the simple reason it’s superfluous to actual requirements. Others need large ships; we don’t. Depends on operational needs.
From the NST – “Mohammad said no single branch of the service can operate independently. We need to work together so that any mission we carry out is more effective and efficient. No single service can claim to have the leading role in this matter. Since Malaysia is a maritime nation, of course, the navy and the air force play important roles because of the greater distances they need to cover”
Good to hear this from an army man. In recent years there’s been a greater emphasis on jointness which is what we need. As shown by the experiences of others which got into the jointness business way before us; service infighting; bureaucracy and parochialism are the main obstacles. In this day and age: especially with the issue of limited resources; jointness in the key.
Romeo – “Anyway, it is a KCR which is designed for patrol and FAC”..
Unlike many other navies the TNI-AL still sees a need for FACs. Despite the emphasis on destroyers, frigates and corvettes the PLAN still operates a large FAC fleet for coastal defence.
Romeo – “Yes,you have a point”.
There is a method to the madness. As Marhalim pointed out the “The government is unwilling to pay for new build and willing to pay the amount to local shipyards”. Is it logical? No but since when do governments always act on logic? Same reasoning with leasing arrangements.
Romeo – ” maintaining old ships are effective but cost of maintenance getting higher and higher”
Not necessarily. Take the RMN’s OP programme. The only recycled thing is the main gun. Maintenance costs are reduced as the engine, generators, props, shaft, ventilation systems and electricals are new.
“MY water from east to west can be sailed in 3 days”
APMM mission is not to just sail from east to west in 3 days like a cargo ship
Its mission is to stay out at sea to patrol an allocated area, to have enduring presence at sea. To exert effective, de facto control of our maritime zones by being physically there out at sea.
Why you need endurance and range?
This is why
https://news.detik.com/berita/d-7599774/bakamla-usir-kapal-china-coast-guard-di-laut-natuna-utara
Actually after the Indonesian ship is forced to go back to port, immediately the Chinese coast guard ship returned to harass indonesian seismic survey in Indonesian EEZ off natuna.
Then another Indonesian ship is sent to again expel the chinese coast guard ship
https://www.detik.com/sumut/hukum-dan-kriminal/d-7604892/bakamla-ri-kembali-halau-kapal-coast-guard-china-di-laut-natuna-utara
A normal endurance of at least 2 weeks at sea will enable a more thorough shadowing of foreign coast guard ships in our EEZ. It will enable other ships to be at port longer (say for a 2 or 3 ship rotation). It will also enable time for other ships to do a proper hand over of the patrol at sea, ensuring that there will always be a ship patrolling the area at all times.
Kedah class for example, have a 3 weeks endurance at sea.
Getting the FCS4008 will enable a normal patrol of 2 weeks at sea, and in emergency can be extended to 4-6 weeks at sea (loitering at idle along with extra food provisions).
… – “Why you need endurance and range”
The rhetorics aside; as it stands range and endurance is not a pressing issue for either the RMN or MMEA.
… – “Kedah class for example, have a 3 weeks endurance at sea”
There is always emergency fuel, food and water which can be utilised at the CO’s discretion. The reason the NGPCs and other MMEA ships are of certain size is too meet the MMEAs’s operational requirements with regards to range and endurance.
“The rhetorics aside; as it stands range and endurance is not a pressing issue for either the RMN or MMEA”
The reason for for the need for something like the MPMS, or even KA Tun Azizan is the lack of endurance of small ships, needing a large ship staying put out at sea to support small ships like FIC and such
when you look at that POV, you need endurance.
The design wanted for MPMS has an endurance of 60+ days
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GaurUmraAAAvRaJ?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
but mission-wise, it depends on if :
1)you really need to patrol and board lots of small boats in the middle of the ocean too far to return to harbour everyday, with something like FIC or RHFB (Rigid Hull Fender Boat). IF you think from that point of view, you will think about MPMS to stay out at sea to be a tender to those small boats.
2) you really need to patrol and board lots of small boats in the middle of the ocean too far to return to harbour everyday, you can have a ship that on its own have long endurance, and equipped with a RHIB to board small boats, or use the boat itself for boarding, with fenders all round. This is where something like FCS4008 comes to play.
… – “The reason for for the need for something like the MPMS, or even KA Tun Azizan”
It was/is as a mother ship for small ships/craft and as a floating platform for C2 and surveillance.
… – “when you look at that POV, you need endurance”
… – “you really need to patrol and board”
I know what endurance is thank you but as I said : endurance and range is not a major issue for us. This is also not the first time we’ve discussed the issue. You are conflatings. Range and endurance is needed but it’s also dependent on operational requirements and CONOPs. Unless we intend on running patrols in the Greenland Straits or off Murmansk in the Arctic Circle; range and endurance is not a major issue for us. It’s not the priority or issue you make it out to be.
… – “you really need to patrol and board lots of small boats in the middle of the ocean too far to return to harbour everyday”
You are making straight comparisons. Depends on individual requirements and the use of mother ships and tenders can also be in a non ocean setting : the use of barges to support riverine forces in the Mekong Delta. They also did the same thing in the Gulf.
… – “The design wanted for MPMS has an endurance of 60+ days”
To also serve a C2 function and other things. Doesn’t mean they need other assets to have improved range and endurance.
… – ” you will think about MPMS to stay out at sea to be a tender to those small boats”
Like what the ex USN LSTs, the first Langkawi and Saktis did and what a new MPSS will do. I’m no expert but tell me something I don’t know; in this regard. Getting back; the fact that they are a need for a mother ship does not necessarily mean they see an urgent need for ships to have improved range and endurance. Don’t conflate things.
One of the reasons why our seas are not constantly patrolled 24/7/365 is because of lack of endurance of our vessels, exacerbated by the lack of actual hulls to patrol with.
Longer endurance means more time at sea for the number of ships available.
Short endurance means wasted time, fuel spent on going back to port. Over a year, a ship with 2 weeks endurance will save 50% of the fuel needed to go to and from port to the patrol area compared to those with 1 week endurance.
2 weeks at sea is not a big issue. Oil and Gas personnel on offshore platforms usually rotate on 2 weeks on 2 weeks off basis.
The more time our patrol boats spent out at sea = less encroachment of our EEZ by illegal fishing vessels, illegal salvage operations, harassment of malaysian fishing and oil & gas vessels at sea.
… – “One of the reasons why our seas are not constantly patrolled 24/7/365 is because of lack of endurance of our vessels”
The main reason is the limited number of manned an unmanned assets we have; not because of range and endurance issues. You would have noticed that the emphasis is on getting new assets; the issue of range and endurance id not the main inhibiting issue you make it out to be.
… – “Longer endurance means more time at sea for the number of ships available.
Short endurance means wasted time”
Yes so you keep reminding and so it’s well understood but for a variety of reasons touched upon in this threadcabd in others over the years; it’s not a main issue as far as we’re concerned. Depend on operational requirements and CONOPs.
… – “The more time our patrol boats spent out at sea = less encroachment of our EEZ”
I would think that this is a point well understood: by the public in general and by the MMEA and RMN. The use of former MISC ships is also aimed at having a C2 and forward presence elemrnt; not just because of range and endurance limitstions of various ships.
Due to the endurance concerns, now Indonesia has deployed its replenishment oiler, KRI Bontang to shadow the chinese coast guard vessels that is harassing Indonesian seismic research in Indonesian EEZ off Natuna.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GaxyNAgasAAzf5Z.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBuAz8QbcAAs0Wg.jpg
… – “Due to the endurance concerns, now Indonesia has deployed its replenishment oiler,”
Good for Indonesia. It has different requirements driven by different CONOPs, i.e. the hospital ship.
” It has different requirements driven by different CONOPs, i.e. the hospital ship ”
That is way off tangent.
The need to counter the Chinese Coast Guard ships at sea is the same for Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia.
Those who have enduring presence on the location de-facto controls the area.
it can be done 2 ways
1) lots of ships with short endurance that would constantly rotate to and from location and port.
2) less ships but with those ships staying put on location for longer durations. That is what Chinese coast guard is doing.
Telling off others that range & endurance is not important does not take the current security situation (needing to face the constant presence of the Chinese Coast Guard) at sea into consideration.
More reasons for the next batch of NGPCs to have better speed, range and endurance
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ga8PGPobcAAAmLr.jpg
Off topic..
Sg has started building MCV with 8000 ton tonnage. It will be tje heavieat in the region due to her role as “unmanned mother ship”
What interest me more is the price. IMO It would cost at least $1 billion each due to this is a new designed ship with highly automation.
… – “That is way off tangent”
No it isn’t. It’s pertinent, different navies do things differently, driven by different requirements and CONOPs.
People do things for different reasons. Not because they can or for the sake of it.
… – “sips at sea is the same for Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia”.
Thank you but nobody indicated otherwise. Again, for us the main issue is the lack of ships, not range and endurance. Understand the nuance?
… – “Telling off others that range & endurance”.
Silly. I’m not “telling you off” but disagreeing with you and telling you why. Again, as far as priorities go, for the RMN and MMEA speed and endurance is not the issue you make it out to be.
… – ” does not take the current security situation (needing to face the constant presence of the Chinese Coast Guard) at sea into consideration”.
Self serving but to be expected. Just because one first not haro about it or see Chinese ships everywhere, including under the bed; their opinions “does not take into account” something. In years of discusdion/debate, when did I “not tsgr into account” the issue we have with Chinese intrusions?
… – ” More reasonsx
Encore for the customary link but there are always reasons. You can keep going preaching based on paper reasons all you like but the reality is that range and endurance is not a major isste for us and the NGPCs and other are designed with this in mind. Not perfect but then nothing is, always trade offs. Not as if we plan on patrolling the Caribbean Sea or Barbary Coast.
The “heaviest” ship will still remain the Chakri Naruebet. For the period it was in service Indonesia’s Sverdlov class cruiser was the “heaviest”.
Navies will go for heavier ships based on several factors, in this case the RSN desires a hill of a certain displacement to do certain things, as opposed to other fir whom range and endurance will be the driving factors.