SHAH ALAM: Moving on RMN. In 2014, South Korean shipyard Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co Ltd (DSME) announced it had signed a contract with a Malaysian shipyard for the supply of six missile corvettes to the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN). The announcement was originally published in a South Korean newspaper though it was quickly picked up by other outlets. Malaysian Defence also ran a story on it, complete with a denial from the RMN that it had signed a contract for the ships.
Unfortunately, the post on Malaysian Defence was among the batch of stories that went missing after the server crashed two years back so I cannot link it here.
DSME missile corvette model displayed at LIMA 2015
Anyhow, if I recalled correctly the local shipyard was supposed to be set up in Pekan, Pahang. Further digging also showed that the company may well be be the successor to the bankrupt shipyard, NGV Tech Sdn Bhd. As you are aware NGV Tech was the original contractor to the two training ships built to a DSME design.
Another angle of the DSME missile corvette at LIMA 2015.
The missing post also stated that the RMN had no plans to buy a missile corvette at that time. And this has been proven correct as this was last the time, we heard about the deal even though DSME took part in LIMA 2015 several months after the announcement. The company displayed a model of the ship at the show though if I recalled correctly, Defence ministry and RMN officials avoided the booth religiously.
A model of the missile corvettes proposed by DSME for RMN at LIMA 2015
For the record the model of the DSME missile corvette displayed at LIMA 15 was fitted with a 76mm main gun, four anti-ship missile launchers, two 30mm guns and various sensors likely also from South Korea.
A picture of Gagah Samudera during her sea trials in October, 2016. via Nazir Darus, Twitter
The ship according to DSME has a length of about 85.5 m, a breadth of 12.9 m, a draft of 3.8 meters and a displacement of about 1,800 tons. It has a crew of 60 sailors, an endurance of more than 20 days and a top speed 26 knots.
KD Keris
And unlike the smaller KD Keris, the China made LMS, the DSME ship has a landing pad for a helicopter though it is not equipped with a hangar for one. So why I am looking back on the story then, did RMN signed a contract for the ship, finally?
KDB Darulaman, a Lurrsen OPV design. US Navy
No, of course not but I remembered the DSME missile corvette after I was told that RMN had sent out RFPs to various local and foreign shipyards on the second batch of the LMS project. The specifications and requirements in the RFP fit the DSME missile corvette to a T, which was the reason I remembered the ship.
A CGi of the Damen Sigma Corvette 8313. Damen
Other designs that fit the bill are the Lurssen OPV80 series, the Damen Sigma corvette 8313 or the 7513 and the Fassmer OPV80, though I admit the ships are on the high end of the cost scale.
Of course an Australian, French, Italian, China, Japan or a Russian ship that is similar to the above designs would also fit the bill. The million dollar question is which one will be chosen, when and how many ships will RMN get. Your guess is as good as mine. If I had some RM10 billion to spare I would choose the Sigma ship.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (27)
If the requirements fits DSME corvette to a T, does it mean TLDM has ditched the MCM modular concept and return to conventional based fit out for LMS batch 2?
Given our previous problems, it should be the ship we know how to build
The main thing that TLDM need to explain is - what is the real mission for the LMS batch 2?
Do they basically want a missile corvette? IMO, a missile corvette in the traditional sense (small ship to covertly attack larger frigates in a hit and run tactic) has no place in future naval warfare. Situational awareness nowadays is so high that it is nearly impossible to do a hit and run tactic. If its main function is to be a patrol boat or OPV (judging form the fassmer and damen offerings), just forget it and leave this to MMEA.
I always feel that the LMS main mission should be a fast maneuverable fighting ship to excel against insurgents and non-state actors on swarming Fast Inshore Attack Craft (FIAC). With its main playground in selat melaka and sulu sea. Equipped with all round EO sensors. Equipped with all round RCWS, and small missiles like the CM-501GA.
http://army-tech.net/forum/index.php?attachments/2950696-jpg.53255/
My opinion on the next 10 years for TLDM (to 2030, to be done on the same level of budget as previously, around USD2 billion of development budget per RMK)
1. Forget about NGPV Kedah batch 2 or whatever it is called now. Leave OPVs to MMEA. Getting fit for the task and budget OPV (1800 ton or bigger at USD60 million or cheaper) for MMEA would be much more value for money for the rakyat. This would also free the TLDM budget to buy other things, like more frigates and submarines.
2. No to batch 2 of LMS 68. Reset the LMS to a new design altogether. Revisit why we need the LMS. What is the reason and mission of the LMS? How can we reset this? What mission does it need to do, and what mission it should not do? What should a LMS rebooted be as a ship?
3. Pass all Kedah class and LMS 68 to MMEA by 2030.
4. Also revisit the reason and mission for MRSS. IMO we have no reason to do large scale amphibious landing, and the actual need is IMO a sea bridge to quickly transfer mechanised battalions/regiments to and from east malaysia and west malaysia. A large fast RORO adapted should be a better ship for the mission rather than a LPD.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbhPrgaWoAEkkjy.jpg:large
5. TLDM needs to get its 6 new frigates by 2025, either salvaging the Gowind programme or getting a new design altogether. TLDM need to look at additional frigates of the same type, at least 3 more (for a total of 9) by 2030. So that we could afford to have 3 ships of the same capability to be always at sea to defend our EEZ. So by 2030 to have a fleet of 2x Lekiu, 2x Kasturi, 9x new frigates.
6. We need to get at least 1 more scorpenes by 2030 for our at sea deterrence and second strike capability. We need to leverage the availability of the hot assembly line in India, to piggyback on that programme to get pressure hulls for our new submarine. Assembly can be done in sepanggar as it is not to dissimilar to our refit process.
7. Enlarge our auxiliary fleet size. Get more OSVs (used), replenishment tankers, floating bases.
I hope next year the contract for the LMS batch 2 will take place.
Lets not question the RMN decisions. They must have studied the threats, the requirements to fight such threats n the ships required.
Lets just follow the decision of the RMN
@ lee
" Lets not question the RMN decisions "
As i recall, we are a democratic country.
At least tell us the mission requirement of the LMS.
If it is mainly for patrol purposes, our (you and me) tax money paid would be better used to buy cheaper but similarly performing patrol vessel for MMEA.
I really cannot see why TLDM needs to have something like the lurssen or fassmer OPV80 or even the damen as we now have a dedicated coast guard agency.
BTW to add to marhalims article, AFAIK there has been no offer of the SIGMAs for the LMS requirement. The actual DAMEN offer is for the stan patrol 6811.
My personal preference would be a damen FCS5509 with armoured bridge and accomodation area, 2x CS/AN3, 4x CS/LM6 HMG, with 2 flat TEU mounting 32x CM-501GA/CM-501XA missiles/loitering munition and 8x C-705
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LMSB1.jpg
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/LMS-B1.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C10D6SyXcAARg1C.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PPKec4fVr7s/maxresdefault.jpg
Reply
What are you talking about the RFP is completely different from an offer from a shipyard. And I am not basing my story on the story from Singapore last September. Damen if they got the RFP, they would have to offer something from its Sigma line for it
@ marhalim
" Damen if they got the RFP, they would have to offer something from its Sigma line for it "
Again, it depends on the specifications wanted by TLDM in their RFP. BTW, why isn't these RFP details revealed to the public?
Reply
Its just a RFP its not yet a tender. As for the specifications its obvious from the ships I mentioned
.... - “I always feel that the LMS main mission should be a fast maneuverable fighting ship to excel against insurgents and non-state actors on swarming”
At the moment and for the foreseeable future we don’t face any “insurgents” or non state actors using “swarming tactics” ..
What we face is cross border incursions by non state actors trying to enter our waters or shores in order to kidnap individuals for monetary gain. Their aim is to avoid contact with security forces and get in and out as fast as possible.
If it’s a repeat of 2013 you’re concern about I really doubt we’d see a repeat. For one the Kirams are unlikely to do again what they did as it play into our strengths. Secondly landing 100 plus people undetected (as opposed to 4-5 people in a kidnapping raid) is harder to do compared to pre ESSCOM because we have considerably beefed up our presence in the area. Thirdly the Filipinos have also beefed up their presence in the Tawi Tawi area and the islands of Jolo
and Basilan - much harder now for large groups of men to leave Filipino waters undetected.
I won’t go into details of how the LMS’s should be designed or armed as its subjective; down to personal preferences. On roles: the LMSs are intended for scenarios which don’t call for a larger LCS; whether in a full conflict scenario or against threats in a more benign environment ; ranging from sea denial to MCM to ASW or assisting other agencies for tasks such as SAR or routine patrols.
These are the tasks the Chinese built ones were supposed to handle (is fully fitted out) and tasks the next batch are intended to, on paper.
Fast and manoeuvrable are always nice/useful; depending on the operational circumstances. In addition to lower operating costs and manning levels; the LMSs also have a shallower draught - useful in the event they need to operate in certain areas.
.
.. - “ missile corvette in the traditional sense (small ship to covertly attack larger frigates in a hit and run tactic) has no place in future naval warfare”
Depends on circumstances/requirements.
Certain navies might not need or be able to afford anything larger or more substantial. The IN for example; has large combatants but still has Khukris and Koras (16 Urans) to perform as pickets or in certain circumstances which suit them. The Israelis have no need for large combatant; multi role corvettes fulfil their needs. Same with the Swedes. Various navies with large combatants (i..e. Bundersmarine) still see the need for FACs for the littoral sea littoral role.
Like FACs; the traditional weakness of corvettes is their modest weapons load out (if faced with air power and heavier surface opponents) and sensors (limited range); as well as sea keeping (yes stabilisers can be fitted to offset things to a certain extent) and endurance. Some of these factors however can be mitigated when ships like these operate in conjunction with other assets.
I m thinking on Saab Kockums Visby multi role corvette, why never suggest to our navy.... And odd think is why every time gov appointed to a local shipyard to build a ship and then went down the project....