SHAH ALAM: Back in early May, Malaysian Defence reported that the RMN has officially taken delivery of KD Perkasa, pennant number 3512 after it completed the Obsolescence Programme Plus (OP) on May 9. Perkasa underwent the OP with a re-hulling which Malaysian Defence is calling the OP Plus.
The OP Plus is the culmination of the FAC fleet upgrade programme as it combined the two other aspects of the initiative – repowering (changing the powerpack, propellors and generators) and with new hull and modifications to general arrangement of the ship.
Malaysian Defence also stated that Perkasa has not been fitted with the EO turret and other capabilities as her sister ships, KD Gempita and KD Pendekar. And stated that it is likely to be done under a different contract.
And that different contract is now likely to be undertaken soon as the Defence Ministry has issued a quotation notice for the modification on Perkasa. The public portion of the notice did not say anything much apart that it was looking for quotation for the modification work.
The QN was published on June 5 and closes on June 12, a period of seven days. I assuming that the modification will be like the ones done on Gempita and Pendekar. As reported at LIMA 2023,
Prime Minister DS Anwar Ibrahim launched Malaysian first homegrown, combat management system (CMS) at the System Consultancy Services (SCS) Sdn Bhd show case at the Mahsuri Interntational Exhibition Centre on May 24.
The CMS was designed, developed, tested, and commissioned by SCS team of engineers and technologies. Anwar was given a hand-on demonstration of a mock-up of the CMS.
The research and development of the CMS started in 2019 when SCS was granted a proof-of-concept project to develop the indigenous system onboard KD Gempita, originally a Spica-M fast attack craft missile.
–Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Really then the only thing carried over from the OG ship is the main gun. Innovation is the mother of all necessities.
Since the hull design is of indigenous design, could it be more useful for MMEA or Polis Marin as a template for coastal patrol boats? Arm with 25/30mm RWS, MG stations, a small deck for VTOL drone usage.
Its up to the Marine police to decide what they want really. I do not think they will want to be shoe horne into something
Sad, while our neighbour are getting brand new ships, we have to rely on an upgraded 40 year old ship.
Kamal- “Sad, while our neighbour are getting brand new ships”
Some of our neighbours are still operating ships which are 40 years old and some still have even older ships.
Also note that the USN still operates ships constructed in the 1980’s.
Navy ship without main radar? Wow thats the first for me..We really are out of time..Beyond shoestring..Doesnt need long range radar tbh for this kind of ship something like thales mw08 will do..But then maybe even that we cant afford now..or maybe they thought its illogical to put brand new radar on 40 years old ship
Hopefully we’ll see these missile boats be rearmed with missiles.
Unlikely
What missile?
If they’re looking to equip these boats with missile menhan wouldn’t gonna bother with both LMSB2 and NGPV rearmament
Old is old. No matter how its rehulled, rebuild, reconstituted, redesigned, its still an old ship – old design, old concept, ill suited for what the Navy is asked to do in 2023, etc. People ought not to be overtly positive about it, otherwise some decision maker might thing rehulling is such a brilliant idea, upgrading the rehulled ships is such a brilliant idea. No, its not. Keep it simple, keep it as minimally functional as possible. Put the money on shipbuilding programs that are more criticial.
“Hopefully we’ll see these missile boats be rearmed with missiles”
As has been explained on numerous occasions there are no such plans for the simple reason that the cash would be put to better use elsewhere. The intention is to perform whatever works which are needed to keep the ships operational for certain types of duties until they can finally be retired.
“Navy ship without main radar? Wow thats the first for me..We really are out of time..Beyond shoestring”
It will be fitted with a radar at a later date. Hold your horses before jumping to conclusions. I can’t think of a single RMN ship which has no radar; whether MCMVs or Tunas Samudera. Some don’t have primary search radars but they have navigation radars …
Kel – “Old is old. No matter how its rehulled, rebuild, reconstituted, redesigned, its still an old ship – old design, old concept, ill suited for what the Navy is asked to do in 2023, etc”
Well we often hear the claim that all the recent works has resulted in a “as good as new ship” which is not what I’ve heard from the proverbial “horses mouth”.
As for your “old concept” FACs are intended for sea denial in the littorals and this is what MTBs/PTs/ S-Boots did in WW2 and why navies got FACs in large numbers in the 1960’s when the idea of a small and cheap missile boat which could sink larger ships was appealing. We on the other hand used FACs for a role they weren’t designed or suited for : extended EEZ patrols.
That’s the reason why the RMN sees no need for any more FACs and why at minimum it seeks a corvette sized design – better range, seakeeping, endurance and more deck space.
Note that the USN had the Pegasus class Harpoon armed FACs which were binned and littoral navies like the Greek navy; Swede navy and Bundersmarine saw great need for them.
Kel – “. Keep it simple, keep it as minimally functional as possible”
As has been discussed to death; a trade off has to be made with regards to how much one wants to spend on aged assets as opposed to saving the cash for newer ones [this will not stop people however from claiming the FACs and other ages assets with no growth potential should be upgraded]..
Take the Laksamana; someone in the know told me about a plan to refill the class in 2014 and was incredulous. It was a feasibility which was never expected to be undertaken. As far bs k as a decade ago the RMN was already hesitant in spending beyond the bare minimum because it wasn’t deemed a good return of investment to do otherwise..
Paragraphs.
“Put the money on shipbuilding programs that are more criticial.”
That is what their doing. The money used for OP is coming from OE fund so means the DE funds for new ships are untouched and hence this innovative way has enabled them to continue using “old” ships while saving money for LCS, LMS2, MRSS, etc.
‘Navy ship without main radar? Wow thats the first for me..We really are out of time..Beyond shoestring’…
I believe the article mentions that radar is on the table via a separate tender later. I’ll live with that.
Even the FIC boats are usually equipped with Furuno maritime radar there ‘s no way the much bigger FACs arent equipped with one
Azlan “Take the Laksamana; someone in the know told me about a plan to refill the class in 2014 and was incredulous. It was a feasibility which was never expected to be undertaken”
Everyone has a right to personal opinion & for me the current plan of doing mostly patrol duty on a rehulled FAC is far more cost & Operational effective then the OG plan of replacing FAC with gun only LMS as it released funds for a far more potent but less limited in numbers LMS2.
Kel – “Old is old. No matter how its rehulled, rebuild, reconstituted, redesigned, its still an old ship – old design, old concept, ill suited for what the Navy is asked to do in 2023, etc”
Its no longer a “FAC” task with limited sea denial duties against a state actors, it’s is in fact a Patrol ship for mostly patrol duty shoe filing for MMEA which currently doesn’t have the capability,assets & personel to fully undertaken those duties.
As a patrol ship it’s good enough or at least not that much worse than the LMS which should replace it.
“which is not what I’ve heard from the proverbial “horses mouth”.”
If the main gun is the only thing carried over from OG, what is it that is not “as good as new ship”?
Taib – “I believe the article mentions that radar is on the table via a separate tender later”
As I said. Firdaus jumped the gun.
Irrespective of whether it’s a primary search radar or a navigation radar I can’t think of any RMN surface assets without a radar. Even the CB-90s have a Furuno and the MCMVs a Kelvin Hughes.
Zaft – “Everyone has a right to personal opinion”
The point you’re trying to make? Yes, like a rear orifice everyone has a “personal opinion” but what I stated was not a “personal opinion” it was/is a fact as stated by someone who was personally involved in the feasibility study ..
Would you like the stated definition of what “personal opinion” is?
– “duties against a state actors, it’s is in fact a Patrol ship for mostly patrol duty shoe filing for MMEA ”
It’s still a FAC sized vessel …. Still has inherent issues when utilised for roles it was not designed for…
Zaft – “As a patrol ship it’s good enough or at least not that much worse than the LMS”
Incorrect and nonsense. The LMS has better seakeeping, range and endurance on account of its design.
“what is it that is not “as good as new ship“
Ships which have just completed a refit or major works can still have issues despite on paper not being supposed to [some years ago an ex RMN man alluded to the same thing here].When that occurs and when the yard can’t rectify the problem then the problem has to be tolerated with for want of anything other option.
Regarding the FACs yes; what what I was told they still have issues; the rebuild wasn’t completely defect free. On a non FAC example; despite several refits and years in service the Kasturis faced issues with Emerlec and director until it was binned.
I wonder why tentera darat is not following this approach to repower some of the condors and sibmas. Same scope of work, replacing the diesel engine, powertrain, aircond and other M&E stuff. I am sure these contractors will give better value than the usual rent seekers.
Dunno when TD is going to be funded for Condor replacements. Our navy’s requirement getting priority.
Hasnan – “I wonder why tentera darat is not following this approach to repower some of the condors and sibmas”
Easy answer …
That should have been performed a long time ago [just like how the RMN planned to upgrade the FACs in the 1990’s]; repowering them and upgrading them does not overcome inherent issues [mobility; weak armour protection: etc] and it’s felt that it’s just not worth the cash given the age of the vehicles and inherent issues. That’s why the programme to upgrade the Condors and Scorpions were binned; not a sound long term return of investment.
Another issue is the army can live with a shortage of IFVs but the RMN can’t meet its current commitments had the FACs and Laksamanas not been reworked on. The RMN has ships at sea 24/7; it has to have ships ready to put to sea when the ones at sea return and it has to factor in that at any given time some ships might be undergoing a refit or maintenance at base. It also has to ensure it has spare hulls ready to it to sea in case it has to maintain a higher tempo for whatever reason [i.e. Op Petaling when almost twor thirds of the fleet at sea or Lahad Dato when extra assets had to be rushed there at short notice].
Hasnan – “Our navy’s requirement getting priority.”
As it should. The army is the senior service and it has the most political pull but its sister services should be given funding priority. Unlike the case in the past it’s the maritime domain which presents the greatest challenge; ever since the Peta Baru was released in 1979.
@hasnan
Condor & Sinbas are pretty much obsolete as a military platform. The FAC however are rehulled to work as primarily patrol ship and not as a surface combatants.
While armour is important it’s not a priority for some army today’s compared to before as evidence with OZ axing most of it’s armour for more long range precise munitions.
@azlan “it was/is a fact as stated by someone who was personally involved in the feasibility study”
Its still is his owned personal opinion & assessment & thankfully it’s isn’t pick to be the official policy.
@azlan “The LMS has better seakeeping, range and endurance on account of its design”.
Its still is a non surface combatants patrol ship at the size of the laksamana which isn’t fit to operate in the EEZ. Basically Spending a lot of money buying them to do MMEA jobs for them while neglecting RMN ‘real job’ isn’t a sound policy and thankfully RMN makes the correct calls for axing it from their OG 1525 plan of replacing FAC with LMS on a 1 to 1 basis.
“Ships which have just completed a refit or major works can still have issues. the rebuild wasn’t completely defect free”
I understand thats the case if majority of the part are from the old ship, but in this case, nearly everything is new. Its like changing everything in a car, including the chassis, and only kept the steering wheel. Can that still have issues?
Perhaps you meant manufacturing defects, which is more due to shipyard workmanship, or design issues which is more to inherent limitation of the design. If its the former, there should be warranty and commissioning responsibilities from the shipyard and if such becomes unsolvable its a matter of poor shipyard selection. For the latter, nothing much can do except TLDM should return to using these boats for the purpose as they were designed for.
@Hasnan
“repower some of the condors and sibmas.”
They should, well at least for the Condors seeing as we have 300-400 units. The Condors also uses off the shelf Unimog chassis which are still being produced for the civvie market. The problem is the vendor, DRB Hicom which proposed a ludicrous high price to relife them and no one else willing to do the job.
Zaft – “Its still is his owned personal opinion & assessment & thankfully it’s isn’t pick to be the official policyl”
It was the opinion of the vast majority of serving officers [ including some who have served on the class – or you know better?] You can spin it all you want but they were incredulous that we would have to resort to such a drastic move. It was a feasibility study which they never expected would come in not fruition.
You’re probably the unaware but prior to the rebuild there were already major issues with the class.
If anything some of your “personal opinions” have tu he’d ouut to be poppycock in account of a lack of research.
Zaft – “Its still is a non surface combatants patrol ship at the size of the laksamana which isn’t fit to operate in the EEZ”
Again, your statement is nonsensical. The LMS by virtue of its design is way superior to FACs in seakeeping, range and endurance.
Zaft – “While armour is important it’s not a priority for some army today’s compared to before as evidence with OZ axing most of it’s armour for more long range precise munitions”
Utter nonsense. You would have noticed that AFVs are getting better protected? Also the issue of Australia doing what you pointed out is not because of what you claimed… Do some research and discover that Australian armour is heavy; well protected and the issue of loitering munitions is an entirely different issue.
The FAC even if it is magically a brand new ship with another 30 years lifespan, is not ships the Navy wants. The Navy wants OPVs not Patrol Crafts. They want to move away from littoral duties. They want ships with missiles. They only went ahead with rehull because of the LCS debacle delaying all other plans. Also LMS batch 1 is not what the Navy wanted. Celebrating rehulls is delusional and dangerous.
@Joe
And the Sibmas was developed on a MAN truck chassis. Parts should still be available. East malaysian 4×4 workshops are good at modifying offroad vehicles. Just got to work with the those willing like how TLDM roped in quite a few local shipyards to implement the OP.
The Indonesian, Thai and Philippines army are still making use of their VT150 Commando APCs.
@azlan “It was the opinion of the vast majority of serving officers”
It just mean the service officer suffered from tunnel vision of what platforms needed to do their current jobs better rather than what they should be doing going forward.
Thankfully the navy higher up doesn’t listen to them or else RMN would still get stucked continuing playing coast guard.
“Again, your statement is nonsensical. The LMS by virtue of its design is way superior to FACs in seakeeping, range and endurance”
All of the virtues your stated just make it better as a patrol ship but doesn’t solve the problems that LMS is a patrol ship and not a surface combatants. IE a good platform for a coast guard but horrible platforms for a navy.
@Azlan “You would have noticed that AFVs are getting better protected?”
Read carefully before shooting. I was referring to the numbers of armour not the thickness of the individuals armour.
You can spin it however your wanted but Like it or not OZ precision munision comes at the expense of numbers of armoured. They said so publicly.
Kel – “FAC even if it is magically a brand new ship with another 30 years lifespan, is not ships the Navy wants”
Again; the FACs were intended to be upgraded in the 1990’s and retired in the early 2000’s. What was done was out of sheer necessity.
Kel – “ The Navy wants OPVs not Patrol Crafts.”
Thousand of words have been written in the subject yet you still are confused? The RMN wants fully fitted out corvettes sized ships to perform a variety of roles which do not call for a frigate sized ship. These corvettes or LMSs are also expected to operate in conjunction with other assets depending on operational circumstances. The RMN does not want “OPVs”, is not seeking “OPVs” and has long not wanted “OPVs.
Kel – “They only went ahead with rehull because of the LCS debacle delaying all other plans.”
No …. They only went ahead with it because replacements are not forthcoming and because without the rebuilds the ships can’t continue performing; i.e. the Laksamanas have had major hull issues since the mid 2000’s.
Kel – “Celebrating rehulls is delusional and dangerous”
It’s a sign of how serious the politicians are towards defence As I told “Zaft” who seem unable to understand simple things [either that or he’s a troll] a RMN friend was incredulous when he told me in 2014 about plans for a Laksamana rehull.
The fact that we has to rehull and conduct other works on ships well past their prime is a national disgrace and indicative of how desietste things have reached.;
Hasnan – “the Sibmas was developed on a MAN truck chassis. Parts should still be available”
So? You missed out the part about it being a big cumbersome and lightly protected design which was great with the SADF in Angola and South West Africa but less so for us. Also missed out the part about the army wanting to reduce the different number of AFVs in service and how the have no place in the army’s CONOPs.
It’s also not about parts being available or not. Parts for the F-5 are still available : why did the RMAF retire it?
Hasnan “- “The Indonesian, Thai and Philippines army are still making use of their VT150 Commando APCs”
So? Until a few years ago some still had T-34/85s and the Ferret is being used [albeit in very small numbers] in the Ukraine.
For various reason we decided to retire the Condor and Sibmas : period/full stop. You even realise that parts of the Condor can be penetrated by 7.62mom AP and that mobility is very poor?
@hasnan
ID,TH & PH has freedom fighters problems so thin old armour maybe something they might find still useful.
As for us which no longer have internal security problems, Simbas, condor & even Adnan are a product of a bygone era and are no longer relevant today . All of them have kinda thin armour while the latter two river & ponds swimming ability is not something a lot of armies today find to be a necessities.
As for us which no longer have internal security problems
Indonesia still has an internal security threat in West Papua and be Philippines still faces the BFF, Matue Group; NPA, IS kinked groups and AS; not only in Mindanao but also the Visayas and Luzon. Look it up. BTW this is not “tunnel vision” or a “personal opinion in case you revert back to that poppycock.
Zaft – “latter two river & ponds swimming ability is not something a lot of armies today find to be a necessities.”
Utter nonsense. The ability to cross river crossings; especially for certain armies; is paramount. The issue is that better protected vehicles have become heavier and can’t “swim”; in his they would have to rely on engineering support.. Unless you happen to be the Israeli, Malian or Tongan army I be ability to have IFVs which can swim is still something more armies look at; assuming weight is not an issue.
@Hasnan
“Sibmas was developed on a MAN truck chassis.”
Civvie trucks also undergone many evolutions. Though yes many parts are shared, the similarities are getting lesser as trucks technology moves to Euro6 and then to EV. This unlike Unimog which is for a very niche segment and didn’t really change much. Also while Condor is a people carrier that could be repurposed as an secondary APC in liew of softskin Handalans, Sibmas is a fire support AFV whose role has now been superseded. So unlike Condors, Sibmas has lesser reason to be kept alive.
Azlan “personal opinion in case you revert back to that poppycock.”
Personal opinion & assessment of a service officer Carry no weight at the procurement office as been proven times & times again is what I’m saying
Azlan “The issue is that better protected vehicles have become heavier and can’t “swim”;”
Can’t have your cake and eat it too. None of the condor replacement candidates can swim.
Zaft – “Personal opinion & assessment of a service officer Carry no weight at the procurement office as been proven times & times again is what I’m saying”
Actually they do… The views of those who have actual first hand experience is often taken into account. Your “no weight” claim is rubbish. Also, the notion that someone who does for a living what you merely Google about and who was part of the team who did the feasibility study has “tunnel vision” is ludicrous. Take the time to look at your “personal opinions. It’s actually you who has “tunnel vision” and erroneous “personal opinions”.
Let me lay it out in as simple as possible English. The RMN did not expect that it would have to carry our a rebuild in hulls well past their prime – full stop/period. No need to backtrack and go off tangent for the sake of arguing or scoring brownie points – unless you’re a troll.
Zaft – “Can’t have your cake and eat it too”
All I said was that if a vehicle can’t swim it because it’s heavy; not because the user see no need… If it can’t swim there is bridging for it to cross water obstacles.
Zaft – “None of the condor replacement candidates can swim
What I said was in simple to understand English. Your claim that armies don’t see the value in having IFVs which can swim is utter nonsense. Research …
BTW what is the bilge pump which is on several AV-8 various for? For fun? You saying that the 6x6s offered can’t swom?