SHAH ALAM: Work for the completion of OPV2 and OPV 3 are still planning in the stage. MMEA director-general Rear Admiral (Maritime) Rosli Abdullah said the agency has issued RFI to 12 shipyards to determine the way forward for the revival of the two incomplete vessels.
According to Rosli, OPV2 was 70 per cent complete while the more was needed on OPV3 as she is only 50 per cent complete. He said OPV 2 could be completed within 12 months as the new builder needs only to connect the two main blocks together.
Rosli declined to say how much money had been paid to THHE-Destini JV for the OPV project – including finishing KM Tun Fatimah. Asked whether the payment was like the ones paid to Boustead Naval Shipyard for the LCS, Rosli replied in the affirmative but stated that unlike the RMN ships, they (equipment on the OPV) are not too sophisticated and they will not be obsolote when we restart the project.
For the record, the contract for the three OPV is RM738.9 million. I am assuming that THHE-Destini JV was paid some RM400 million until the project stopped in 2021 based on the progress payments for the the steel and other of equipment of the OPVs. Another RM152.6 million loan was extended to THHE to complete KM Tun Fatimah in early 2023. This means some RM552 million has been made to THHE.
Asked how much more money was needed to complete the two OPVs, Rosli declined to say it. Asked whether it will be higher than the contract announced in 2017, he said “Of course it will be”.
It must be noted that Home Minister Shaifuddin Nasution in April, this year stated that they need some RM200 million to complete the two OPVs. I am assuming that the whole projec will cost some RM1 billion. It will also be ten years late.
As the OPV revival was not included in the 2025 budget (see above), it is likely the work on the two ships will start next year. The incomplete hulls of both ships and their equipment are likely still stored at the THHE Fabricators yard in Pulau Indah.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Will it be the case of new yard taking over the current and continue building in situ or will be shipping the modules & other parts to their own yard to complete?
If MMEA is ready to issue RFI does it mean we dodged the lengthy legal wrangling that delayed Gagahs for many years?
And now that we touching on thorny subject, anymore updates on continuing progress for LCS as well? Seems like all quiet again.
I believe the only thing that is needed to be paid to complete the ships is basically the manpower to finish the build. All of the hardwares for the ships should be paid-for in full already.
I also believe this should be the case for the 6th Gowind. All the steel for the hull, all the equipments, hardwares, engines, electronics; even the guns and radars have been paid for and now stored somewhere.
We should have a good look on what is the cost to be added to complete the 6th gowind using RMK13 2026-2030 budget. It would be a win-win for both TLDM (getting additional ASW capable ship by 2030) and also LUNAS (additional contact and work to do up to 2030)
As I mentioned in a previous posting, I am not going to do any more stories on the LCS until it goes for harbour trials. At the moment, the ship is back on the hardstand before the planned harbour trials which is supposed to be next month.
Cruise with one generator set running? Generator as the name implies is for power generation not for propulsion.
LCS progress is as per schedule so far.
I will wait for the next major milestone, which is the harbour trials scheduled by November. If it does not start by end of the month, then it will be a big problem.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/PAC4.jpeg
” (getting additional ASW capable ship by 2030) ”
Yes but without a a ASW helicopter configured and with the range, endurance and lift capacity for the time consuming and resource extensive game that ASW is; the LCS will just be another ship with triple torp tubes which are mainly for self-defence. Sure it will have the means to detect contacts at long ranges and below the thermocline but it also needs a helo to track, fix and engage the contact.
As things stand it I’ll be surprised if a contract is awarded before all 5 hulls are in service.
Malaysian shipyards cant build sophisticated ships. Every single project related to RMN or MMEA will have cost overuns and years of delay. They are just too incompetent. Just buy direct from overseas.
We can play the ASW game within our budget
6x Gowind Frigates to enable at least 2 always out at sea doing ASW patrols around GSP.
6x MH-60R from US Navy excess stocks. TLDM want to buy ASW helicopter in RMK13 2026-2030 anyway, and this is a way to get 6 current ASW helicopter for cheap
https://www.twz.com/26395/the-navy-has-dozens-more-mh-60r-helicopters-than-it-needs-due-to-lcs-debacle
ATR 72-MPA batch 2 for 4 more aircraft in RMK13 2026-2030. For a total of 6 MPAs. To do ASW with sonobuoy launchers and MAD.
2-3 LMS-X sailing together with the gowinds as loyal wingmans. To equip them with low cost towed array systems such as the SEA Kraitsense system (2 systems bought by indonesia for OPV90).
CAPTAS-2 + Kraitsense + AN/AQS-22 ALFS (MH-60R) + sonobuoys (ATR-72MPA) would detect unknown submarines by using multi-static sonar operations concept.
@ din
We can build complex ships. We have competent shipyards building many ships, even for export.
We need to
1) stop meddling with project scope, specifications & politicking (witchhunt for cost cutting) when it has already started (gowind)
2) give contract to bona-fide shipyards only (training ships, OPV)
Another method to engage subs is by using multirotor UAVs to drop torpedoes over the sub location.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9OIiWFW8AAM7SC.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GL1xFLnWIAAs8ZD.jpg
It not they are not competent technically but rather lack the time and monetary management
get progress payment, straight pay bonus and staff salary but not subcontractors. Then drag payment period
once subcon stop work, the whole progress delayed further. It like never ending pit
@Din
“Malaysian shipyards cant build sophisticated ships.”
Its not that the yards & locals cannot build these ships, but its the middle management that overpromised our capabilities but underdeliver them and then screws up the company/finances. This ontop of lala land Govts thinking we can build high tech warships on the cheap and so only give shoestring budget that is destined to fail. I believe that if OPV program had stuck to the initial planned 2 units instead of stretching the same budget to fit another ship in, the yard company would have just enough cashflow to complete both ships. The delays due to Covid lockdown was unavoidable unfortunately.
Malaysian yards have constructed tankers and various other types of ships before. I have no idea what your definition of ‘sophisticated’ is but it’s not like local yards are only capable of constructing 35 foot pleasure boats or tug boats.
Naval wise local yards have constructed ships on spec, within budget and on time; for a variety of customers. Granted they did not construct carriers or cruisers but they have a track record. If put through a learning curve; if sufficient funding is made available and if three is no political interference; there is no reason why a local yard can’t on spec, within budget and on time. Blaming it on ‘incompetence’ is simplistic.
As a caveat I’m not advocating we construct locally. I’d rather have hulls constructed abroad because it tends to be cheaper and larger yards with a certain level of capacity can deliver faster. By the same token I won’t make the claim that a local yard can’t do the job.
If you care to examine the reasons behind the cock up with the LCSs, training ships and MMEA OPVs you’d find that technical issues was a small part as opposed to other issues; namely yards which were not financially healthy and other reasons. With the Kedahs and Naval Dockyard it was mismanagement at the very top. This goes back to the question of how certain yards/individuals get contracts but that’s another story and a reflection of the syatem as a whole; not on the actual yard’s ability.
… – ”We can play the ASW game within our budget”
What we can do on paper within the budget and what we’ll actually do can be two profoundly different things; as you well know.
… – ”For a total of 6 MPAs. To do ASW with sonobuoy launchers and MAD.”
Look beyond the on paper stuff. Given we have or will have so few ASW configured MPAs; how much time will they actually get to practice the time and skill extensive business that SAW is.
… – ”Another method to engage subs is by using multirotor UAVs to drop torpedoes over the sub location.”
I’m aware that ASW UASs are increasingly becoming available to supplement ships and aircraft but realistically do you expect that we’ll be getting any in the near future?
… – ”would detect unknown submarines by using multi-static sonar operations concept.”
No offence but if I wanted to know what was on the market; I’d know where to look. I’m interested in what we’d realistically get and how we’d employ it. Sure we will have ASW capable ships [have had them in some dorm or another since the 1st Hang Tuah with its Squid launcher arrived] but whether we’ll actually have the hardware and skill sets to employ ASW on an effective basis is the open question. Like may other navies we are resource constrained and can only devote so much time and resources to the highly resource extensive business that is ASW.
… – ”doing ASW patrols around GSP.”
”Doing ASW” where ever they are needed. The Spratlys is merely one of several operating areas.
Having an Amazon fulfillment drone just to drop torps is not a bad idea but only if it complements the LCS ASW chopper.
As I see it, realistically were not likely to get expensive Romeos or NH90s ASW so the more likely which in our affordability range is Wildcat ASW and each LCS is also not likely to carry a 2nd chopper. Yes I know some will point out its short legs but if its role is just to carry a dipping sonar and pinpoint a sub location, it could call in the Amazon drone to come and drop a torp thereby not needing it to carry the weapon or go back to reload. The ASW chopper could remain on station while the drone will return to rearm for 2nd round.
@ joe
If we can only afford wildcats, it is better to just add dipping sonar to our current super lynx and call it a day. Our super lynx is like 80% wildcat, just without the squarish tailboom and older avionics. So replace avionics with latest ones, add dipping sonar, then it is basically a wildcat without the squarish tailboom. Virtually the same performance and capability.
But we could get romeos, as US Navy overbought them to more than what they actually need. Rather than cancelling the order, they just continue with the contract and store the excess romeos. There is probably 1-2 dozen of them. We just need 6 so no harm for TLDM to request for US EDA (exceess defence article) of those MH-60R Romeos. If we are lucky, it will be for free, if not it would be much less than buying new Romeos.
https://www.twz.com/26395/the-navy-has-dozens-more-mh-60r-helicopters-than-it-needs-due-to-lcs-debacle
Other navy things that is available through US EDA
– LCS, both freedom and independence variants
– freedom class 16 built/in construction, only 10 to be retained (surface warfare).
– independence class 19 built/in construction, only 15 to be retained (MCM warfare).
– Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport (EPF) / JHSV
– 16 built/in construction, only 8 to be retained.
This is a picture of USS Coronado in Feb 2024, what looks to be still in good condition after retired in Sept 2022
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/LCS-4_USS_Coronado_in_Bremerton_WA_on_02-22-2024.jpg
”Having an Amazon fulfillment drone”
It’s not an ”Amazon fulfillment drone” as you put it but a purpose built UAS with sonobuoys and torps which is networked and works in conjunction with other assets.
”only if it complements the LCS ASW chopper.”
”Complements” the ship, MPA and helo – that’s the whole point of it. UASs/drone have not reached a point where they can replace anything else. At present ASW configured UASs are still a nascent tech but things are moving fast.
”The ASW chopper could remain on station while the drone will return to rearm for 2nd round.”
A Wildcat carrying a torp or dipping sonar has very short endurance; unless the contact is not far but the whole point is to engage the contact as far out as possible. One can have a Wildcat with a sonar and another with a torp but that’s not practical.
The idea is for unmanned assets to detect and fix/localise to contact prior to a manned asset or a longer range unmanned assets engaging the contact. Or, for unmanned assets to work along the coast whilst longer ranged manned assets work further out.
RMN will not be interested in the US LCS, their maintenance cost is very high. They are also fitted with gas turbines.
… – ”it is better to just add dipping sonar to our current super lynx and call it a day. ”
As is widely known the Lynx requires an upgrade and the RMN has openly stated that an upgrade will cost as nearly as much as buying new. As such the intention is to retire the fleet as soon as possible.
… – ”But we could get romeos”
Yes you’ve said so on numerous occasions but ther has to be intent.
… – ” Virtually the same performance and capability.”
On paper. In reality the fleet is aged and various things need replacing. the costs are high and not seen as a good ROI given the age of the platforms.
… – ”and call it a day.”
As things stand it will either be the Wildcat or the Korean design. The disadvantage of getting Wildcat – for us – is that product support/spares for the Wildcat will not be cheap. That is where the Koreans will have an advantage. Ultimately, if we do get Wildcat it will be a great platform but one with only limited ASW capabilities. The LCS on paper will have the ability to detect contacts at certain ranges but its embarked helo will be one with extremely limited range, endurance and lift capacity. A Wildcat can’t carry a dipping sonar, torps and sonobuoys and even with a dipping sonar and single torp; limited arange and endurance. ASW is time extensive and requires a helo to fly somedistance and to be in the area for some period.
The last time around, the testing team found the Wildcat unsuitable due to its limited ASW capabilities. The Romeo was the preferred choice. That said the RMN was not pleased when finding out that US Navy has about a dozen or so technicians for a single Romeo.
There is no way we can have that many support crew in the event we get the Romeo. We have only a limited number of support personnel trained to do highly technical niche stuff. A question I’d like to know but of course is one for which an answer is hard to get is how does the Wildcat, Romeo and Marineon compare with regards to per flight hour operating costs and post flight maintenance. Very pertinent given that the RMN is a small under resourced navy.
Well at least the Romeo will be easily supportable due to the large user base with the US Navy in charge of the FMS case. Just like the Hornets.
Apart from the lack of trained personnel, we must also remember that RMN ships are much smaller hence they can carry only a limited number of extra personnel for helo or any other operations.
And have less space to carry more than the normal people needed to support an embarked helo.
Which you alluded to.
The korean design is basically Eurocopter Puma made in Korea. Puma does not have a hole in the floor to put dipping sonar through (as is others such as AW139/AW189). A reason why no ASW Puma/Surion to date.
Yes there has been offer of an ASW Surion/marineon recently, but that would mean massive R&D cost, and the first hole in the floor of any Puma/super puma/ cougar/ caracal in the world.
https://weaponsandwarfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/1706519955_606_Puma-Helicopter.jpg
A full rebuild of Brazil Lynx (new engine, transmission, avionics etc) to wildcat standard (they now call the helicopter WildLynx) costs USD160 million for 8 helicopters (USD20 million per helicopter)
https://www.leonardo.com/en/press-release-detail/-/detail/brazilian-navy-lynx-mk21a-upgrade
TLDM superlynx already have the same engine and transmission as the Wildcat (actually the first lynx to have so). So it would actually cost less than the Brazil conversion.
Whatever it is, excess MH-60R Romeo of US Navy is the best capability for the money that we can get. Rather than buying 4 new helicopters, we can get 6 barely used Romeos for probably less cost (or even free!)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gc9MOmpaAAIgdME.jpg
Royal Navy going to retire HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark to save cost. Maybe get these two and retire our Mahawangsas.
Not as old as the Mahawangsas but old enough to be uneconomical to maintain and run. As the MRSS is supposed to be bought in RMK13, I dont think the RMN will even layan any proposals for the two. Apart from a free junket to the UK to tell them its a no go.
” old enough to be uneconomical to maintain and run ”
If a ship commissioned in june 2003 and december 2004 is considered ” old enough to be uneconomical to maintain and run”, virtually every single FAC, corvette, frigate and even the 2 earliest Kedah class OPV in TLDM fleet is in that category.
But logically, very large ship that is built to mainly do amphibious operations (both new and used) has no place in our current need to do offshore presence as much as possible with low operational costs.
The need to have a logistics lifeline between east and west malaysia could be catered dedicated roro ships like UK point class ships, or spanish navy SPS Ysabel. The current Tentera Darat push to have similar capabilities in both east and west malaysia will further reduce the need to rely on ships to bring in reinforcements in crisis.
For the MY perspective as we do not have the yard to maintain them unlike the FAC, corvettes and frigates. Only Lunas has a yard big enough for for them.
We do have. But that does not mean we need those amphibious ships. It needs 325 persons to man the ship, and is very expensive to operate. This from 2015 places the annual operating cost of the Albions at nearly £24million, when even the Type 45 destroyer costs £14.7million.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80ae7d40f0b62302694e7d/Revised_2015-06440_Average_costs_RN_Surface_vessels.pdf
Our existing large shipyard that regularly repairs very large ships.
MMHE Pasir gudang
https://mhb.com.my/solutions/our-yards/
I don’t think even LUNAS lumut can lift out a 19,500ton displacement ship like the Albions. Many shipyards (even LUNAS) in Malaysia are comfortable taking ships up to 150m in length, but not something like this 167m albions. Even the Gowind is just 111m in length.
Just saying because getting the MRSS funded is a wet dream. The cost will be in excess of a half billion ringgit
If we get the Kuwaiti Hornets most funding will go that way…upgrades and opex.
Anyway, the cost of maintenance should be cheaper as in Malaysian labour cost and the ship being just 20+ years old. Am sure the Mahawangsas cost a bomb to maintain given their age.
“a purpose built UAS with sonobuoys and torps which is networked and works in conjunction with other assets.”
What is an Amazon fulfillment drone but a purpose built UAS that delivers precision payload which is networked and works in conjunction with other Amazon delivery assets & drones. Err so how is that different again? Most commercial drone fleet are quite the same in features as mil spec, except maybe hardened electronics & secured sat comms. Autonomous flying taxis in near future will be the same too.
“The idea is for unmanned assets to detect and fix/localise”
We havent reach a stage where total reliance can be put onto a UAS to pinpoint a sub and another UAS to carry the torp. Maybe some 1st rate navies are doing it but were not there yet.
The short legs of Wildcat would be mitigated by having another platform to help lug the torp, leaving the chopper just to find & maintain contact with dipping sonar. In the confines of Selat Melaka & our portion of SCS this disadvantage isnt a big con against it.
@Hulu
“But we could get romeos, as US Navy overbought them”
That article was >3years ago, not sure what happen since. Long storage could also degrade them that would need costly refurb. Despite the suitability of Romeo to the mission, the case has been made against it. Like an S-Class even if we diedie manage to buy it we would unable to afford run them consistently. About the Superlynx, its an aged platform the current is Wildcat/Wildlynx, so if were spending money better to get the latest stuff. Imho for marine choppers I would prefer to buy new rather than used or refurb existing Lynx, as 2ndhand would have been exposed to salt & seawater + adverse weather flying to various degrees, but there will still be inherent degradation even if you zero hour the powertrain. Yes even if chassis is marinised.
@Hasnan
There is a reason why RN decided to retire both ships concurrently. If GB also cannot afford to keep them running, what makes you think we can?
We are struggling to buy six helicopters for ASW and your solution is to buy six other platform – a UAS – to carry the torpedoes including the helicopters? None of the ships in service or even the LCS has the space to carry more than a helicopter.
Huh? RMN and RMAF budgets are separately allocated. Thats why RMAF got their FLIT/LCA, MPA and UAS while the RMN, the LCS and LMS Batch 2.
Yes, not all the items in the wish list in the DE plan are paid for but everyone makes sure they got what they need. Furthermore, it is likely that the Kuwaiti Hornets upgrade will be paid for by the OE funding.
The MRSS procurement will be done under the DE. Have procurement plans been cancelled due to service centric programmes? Of course, but it is mostly due to the government cost cutting plans.
@Hulu
Why do you so much oppose RMN getting MPSS? It’s not just for transport equiments from point A to point B, it could do other things like patrol or even act as RMN mothership on South China Sea
“We are struggling to buy six helicopters for ASW”
We are struggling to buy the right kind of ASW chopper that could adequately perform (ie Romeo), its not like we cannot afford for Wildcat ASWs but since its shortlegged either we have to put up with its inherent deficiencies and having a smaller AS effective area coverage or else have a support platform that could help mitigate it, thats my 2nd option.
Its just a guess but with Wildcat being a smaller craft than Romeo (which LCS hangar designed to fit), it might be possible to stow a torp delivery UAS inside. Just a thought.
>mpss
>half a billion ringgit
Which is, what? 110 million usd? way cheaper than the cost of one LMSB2
At this point lets pray hard that OPV2 and OPV3 will be delivered and future OPV will be built by non crony more trust worthy yard *cough2
Imho arguing about the viability of MRSS is a nonstarter. The MPSS Mahawangsas are old and due time to replace. The fact that we got a lot of usage & value from them says a lot about the support role importance, and due to our stingy budget, were not in a position to get very specialised role ships ie RORO & tender, to replace a single ship. That is why we need MRSS to be the one ship that can perform equal and a fair bit more than current Mahawangsa. That is why MRSS is specced in as such with amphib landing capability and support for multiple choppers, etc.
>future OPV will be built by non crony more trust worthy yard
Name 1 local yard that could build OPV the size of KM Tun Fatimah that is “non crony” lmao
” Name 1 local yard that could build OPV the size of KM Tun Fatimah that is “non crony” lmao ”
I can name quite a few, not just 1.
1800ton and 83m in length is not a big issue.
For the now I do say its LUNAS, being nationalised and all. But it needs to clear the 5/6 ships in yard beforehand…
But before new OPV I would question if even MMEA has a need for a mothership. Seems like every water based service is getting in on the game to have one.
>I can name quite a few, not just 1
name 5
also check their shareholders if you see any glcs/glics or politicians having at least 10 pct of the share or in the BOD
Not just current politicians but also expoliticians, exministers, businesspeople aligned to the current Govt.
@ dundun
MMHE is petronas owned so that is out
1) GRADE ONE MARINE SHIPYARD SDN. BHD
2) LABUAN SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING SDN BHD
3) SHIN YANG SHIPYARD SDN BHD
4) Muhibbah Marine Engineering Sdn Bhd
5) MSET Shipbuilding Corp. Sdn Bhd
6) Nam Cheong Dockyard Sdn Bhd
7) Coastal Contracts Berhad
8) Berjaya Dockyard (Sibu) Sdn. Bhd.
” I would question if even MMEA has a need for a mothership ”
IMO there is no need of a large mother ship to park far offshore at the edges of our 200nm EEZ. A normal large OPV should do the tasks fine.
For loitering in the middle of illegal routes to malaysia, Batam to Desaru for example, something like this can be used. This has a very low operational cost as it has no large engines to run, with a 55m tall mast that can be an ideal observation system with high definition EO turret / EO observation system placed high up on the mast tied to machine learning/AI software to automatically detect targets around the ship 24/7.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBSLfoMbYAAY_bV.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBSLQUXbwAA1typ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_XvkTBboAAp7Ui.jpg
” Why do you so much oppose RMN getting MPSS? ”
It is MRSS. We are not exactly flush with cash. It will cost more than USD1 bil for the planned 3 ships.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MRSS-4.png
Even a modified Makassar class LPD that is purposely designed for TLDM MRSS but now has been bought by UAE navy costs USD408 million for a single ship!
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/navdex-2023/2023/03/uae-procures-lpd-from-indonesian-shipbuilder-pt-pal/
How do we know this is originally a MRSS design for TLDM? THe ship is specifically designed to carry 16x PT-91 + 6x AV-8 Gempita (read the article)
The PT PAL MRSS brochure
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNg2N1oacAMXNFD.jpg
Money that could be used for ships that has lethal capabilities such as more scorpene submarines or such. We bought 2x Scorpenes for RM6.7 billion ringgit.
Logistics tasks could be handled by used ROROs such as SPS Ysabel bought by Spanish Navy for only EUR 7.5 million. You don’t need an expensive USD408 million ship to specifically do cargo movements from West to East Malaysia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Ysabel
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBSihKSaMAAu5lg.jpg
Let us get back to the MRSS
Lets see what is the official TLDM 15to5 revised Force Structure 2040 looks like
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GaZ6gK_bsAAStSy.jpg
For the next 5 year RMK13 2026-2030 plan, this is what TLDM plan to get
– 2x MRSS
– 3x LMS B3, which now will become Corvette Turkiye Batch 2
What is the estimated cost? From historical data, we know that TLDM usually gets around USD2 billion DE/Capex for each 5 year RMK.
2x MRSS if looking at the PT PAL MRSS 163m price for UAE, that would be USD403 million per ship. So for 2 ships it would be USD806 million. 3x Turkiye Corvettes would be around USD200 million each, so for 3 ships it would be USD600 million.
Those turkiye corvette batch 2 would probably still be built in Turkiye, as LUNAS will have full hands to 2028 at least to settle those Gowinds.
Total cost for 2x MRSS and 3x Turkiye Corvette Batch 2 would be USD1.4 billion. That would also infer a budget of around USD600 million to get 4x ASW helicopter. That budget, based on Greece DSCA request, is actually more than enough to get 7x brand-new MH-60R Romeos.
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/greece-mh-60r-multi-mission-helicopters
By not buying MRSS, that is USD800 million freed to get other items.
My alternative Force Structure 2040 for RMK13 2026-2030
USD600mil 3x Turkiye Corvette Batch 2
USD100mil 1x Gowind assembly cost (6th Gowind)
USD150mil 3x 80-90m OSV multi role
USD040mil 2x used RORO + upgrade cost
USD200mil 6x LMS-X FCS5009 with surface attack missile module. Replace 1to1 all FAC(M) not rehulled OP+.
USD060mil 2x LMS-X FCS5009 Hydrographic Survey version.
USD300mil 6x US EDA used MH-60R Romeo
USD100mil 4x AW139 HOM batch 2
USD150mil 2x MCM USV UUV system set for OSV
USD060mil 6x ASW low cost towed sonar array module for LMS-X
USD000mil 4x US EDA RQ-21A blackjack UAV systems. Use same launcher, retriever, control system as scaneagle but bigger UAV.
Total spend of USD1.81 billion.
Alternative TLDM Fleet in 2030
– 2x Scorpene Submarine
– 6x LCS Gowind ASW Frigate 3200tons
– 6x Turkiye Corvette 2500tons
– 6x LMS-X FCS5009 500tons
– 1x Laksamana NewHull (mohd amin)
– 2x FAC NewHull (perkasa, ganyang)
– 6x Jerung FAC (to replace by LMS-X batch 2)
– 4x Vosper NewHull (to replace by LMS-X batch 3)
– 3x 80-90m OSV multi role MCM mothership, Sub tender, SF support, drone support, pipeline/cable surveillance, hydrographic survey support, HADR.
– 2x RORO east-west malaysia logistics bridge
– 2x Training ship gagah samudera class
Helicopters
– 6x MH-60R ASW
– 6x AW139 HOM
– 4x AS-555N + 4x AS-355N transfer from PDRM
Retire by 2030
– 3x Laksamana class
– 4x Mahamiru MCMV
Pass to APMM by 2030
– 4x LMS68 Keris class
– 6x Kedah class OPV
– 2x Lekiu class convert to OPV
– 2x Kasturi class convert to OPV
“something like this can be used”
You serious? Are we going back to the age of sail & pirates? Yarr! Me matey!
Theres a reason why sail died quickly after Man managed to put in viable engine onboard ships and sail have since been relegated to pleasure boats. Most big ships have 2nd cruising engines that are economical & fuel efficient hence no reason to put up a sail on a ship. Whatmore sail boats are, as like their antiquity ancestors, at the mercy of the wind blowing which way (or not even).
If you pay attention to the MRSS specs, hauling is just one of its multiple tasks.
That specs may not be for UAE. Case in point UAE doesnt have PT91s.
@ joe
” hauling is just one of its multiple tasks ”
What is the other “multiple tasks” that we really need to do with MRSS that other ships cannot do? What can the MRSS offer to counter the chinese annexation of malaysian maritime zone?
From PT PAL brochure
Military operations
– amphibious (do we really need the capability to do this?)
– naval gun fire support (can be done by frigate and corvette)
– logistics (done by RORO)
– sealift (done by RORO)
– naval presence and patrol (cheap OPVs)
– command and control (frigate)
– reconnaissance and surveillance (frigates and corvettes)
– helicopter platform (frigate and corvettes)
– international cooperation and naval diplomacy (can be done by any other ships)
Non military operations
– HA humanitarian assistance (OSV, RORO)
– DR disaster response (OSV,RORO)
– Logistics (OSV, RORO)
– SAR (OSV, RORO)
– mass evacuation (OSV, RORO)
” That specs may not be for UAE. Case in point UAE doesnt have PT91s ”
That is the spec of the UAE ships, the design including such specs clearly shows that the 163m LPD for UAE is originally developed for the TLDM MRSS requirements.
@Hulubalang
“2x MRSS if looking at the PT PAL MRSS 163m price for UAE, that would be USD403 million per ship”
Nope…USD 403 mio is the whole contract value, PT PAL will deliver more than 1 ship. As comparison the PN newest contract for 2 original 123m LPD is only USD 105 mio.(hull+sailing radar and sensors) I guess the UAE could get 5 ships.l id they ordered as PN configuration and less number if delivered in full specs.
“What is the other “multiple tasks” that we really need to do with MRSS that other ships cannot do?”
We can also say that we dont need MRCA because the FA-50 can do what MRCA can. But in details FA 50 can not.
We can not simplifying a role of one tyoe ship can be taken by other. A ship is designed to maximize her certain function and efficient in ops.
@Hulubalang
“2x MRSS if looking at the PT PAL MRSS 163m price for UAE, that would be USD403 million per ship”
Nope…USD 403 mio is the whole contract value, PT PAL will deliver more than 1 ship. As comparison the PN newest contract for 2 original 123m LPD is only USD 105 mio.(hull+sailing radar and sensors) I guess the UAE could get 5 ships if they ordered as PN configuration and less number if delivered in full specs.
“What is the other “multiple tasks” that we really need to do with MRSS that other ships cannot do?”
We can also say that we dont need MRCA because the FA-50 can do what MRCA can. But in details FA 50 can not.
We can not simplifying a role of one tyoe ship can be taken by other. A ship is designed to maximize her certain function and efficient in ops.
@ Romeo
All the official release, puts out the USD408 million cost is for 1x 163m LPD
What is the price of similar ships?
Algerian LPD, BDSL (Bâtiment de Débarquement et de Soutien Logistique) Kalaat Beni-Abbes, costs over EUR400 million. This LPD is shorter and with less displacement than the PT PAL 163m LPD.
https://www.navaltoday.com/2014/01/23/algerian-navys-bdsl-hits-the-water-at-fincantieri/
” A ship is designed to maximize her certain function and efficient in ops ”
Is that ship function relevant in the context of our current defence and security concern, which is to defend our maritime zone from being annexed? If it can only serve secondary roles to that concern, it is a ship that we don’t really need in the bigger scheme of things (aka we need that money to buy other more important things for the navy to protect our maritime zone).
” You serious? ”
Yes i am.
For loitering it is perfect. Use the sails to loiter slowly for weeks. When operating budget/money are limited, a ship that can move without using fuel will be the one always being put out at sea.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cr6n-WfW8AELrnS.jpg
If you don’t want to move you can stow your sails. Just run gensets, not main engines for your electrical power needs when loitering slowly or at rest. For surveillance that 55m tall mast is basically a persistent UAV always up there 24/7.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW_n032bEAAPaAi.jpg
Or run the main engines to really get going
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBRP3tgbUAAxAzd.jpg
@Hulu
“What is the other “multiple tasks” that we really need to do”
Amphibious
Naval Gun Support
Naval Presence & Patrol
Command & Control
Recon & Survey
Chopper platform
Coop & Naval Diplomacy
“That is the spec of the UAE ships”
Then are you saying UAE have/will procure PT91s? Because the news says its whats it gonna haul… If its not to haul PT91 then why put it there?
“Use the sails to loiter slowly for weeks.”
Our ships dont need to be loitering for weeks. Even if the boat can, the crew will mutiny. With enough ships in TLDM & MMEA we just need to ensure regular patrol rotations.
“a ship that can move without using fuel”
A sailboat will move at the mercy & fickleness of tide & wind, its why Man has largely abandoned it for commerce.
@ joe
All the tasks above does not need a LPD costing USD408 million to do, except the amphibious part. Our main maritime concern is to defend our maritime areas, not to invade others amphibiously.
” If its not to haul PT91 then why put it there? ”
Because the 163m LPD technical specification is originally drawn by PT PAL for the TLDM requirements, and UAE just bought that design? That is simple to understand, no?
” With enough ships in TLDM & MMEA ”
Do we have enough ships? no.
Even chinese coast guard OPVs patrol malaysian EEZ for months. The WMEC cutters of USCG being given to APMM is designed to be out at sea for 6-8 weeks. Longer missions out at sea also means longer rest periods back ashore.
” A sailboat will move at the mercy & fickleness of tide & wind, its why Man has largely abandoned it for commerce ”
Say it again?
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/worlds-first-hybrid-wind-powered-cargo-vessel-visits-port-canaveral-gallery/
For presence, for just loitering around slowly at a location for days, sail power is perfect. If needed, it does have an engine to move without needing any wind. The tall mast is also a great tool for surveillance and situational awareness, with sensors able to have a greater line of sight to the horizon.