Boustead to go with Gowind. Updated with picture

LANGKAWI (Dec 4): Boustead has put up a model of the Gowind frigate at its booth for Lima 2011.

However before I left the Mahsuri hall at 630pm the model has yet to be put up although the stand containing the text was already prepared to be put up.

I will post the picture of the model perhaps by tomorrow morning.
The text says the ship will be 107 metres long with a displacement of 2750 tonnes. That would make it a FFG not a LCS or SGPV.

Boustead Gowind Frigate

The model sports a Bofors MK4 57mm gun, an eight (updated) cell ESSM launcher, a Rheimental FCR front and back, two 30mm Otobreda guns and a big helo deck.

Word is that the contract for the ship WILL NOT be signed at Lima though.

–Malaysian Defence

Laksamana-class Frigates, An Overview
Boustead Gowind Frigate
KUALA LUMPUR: I had ...
SGPV or LCS…Part II SHAH ALAM: Here are the latest buzz on the SGPV/LCS ...
Fait Accompli or Lima 2013 preview LANGKAWI: Lima 2013 starts tomorrow (March 26, 2013) and as ...
57mm Mk3 Naval Guns for SGPV/LCS SHAH ALAM: AS first reported here, it was confirmed today ...
Lima 2011, in Passing SHAH ALAM: I know, Lima 2011 ended almost a week ...

45 Responses to "Boustead to go with Gowind. Updated with picture"

Hui says:

December 5, 2011 at 1:14 pm

by six launcher, do you mean 6 cell MK41 that provides a capacity of 24 missiles?
Ym Lee says:

December 5, 2011 at 1:15 pm

I am not anti defence spending but using cold hard cash at this moment to bau another six brand new frigates is a bit stainning to the economy of the country-next year the recession will really hit us.
Would it not be better to upgrade the existing 6 NGPV? Arm them to the hilt as these ships are here, ready and available.This will make these PV’s more capable, maximise their structure and save the country lots of money.The new ships can be baought when the world economy improves
Hui says:

December 5, 2011 at 1:16 pm

anyways, from the picture it looks more like a standard 4×2 MK41 thou.

Reply
Its probably a six cell Sylver launcher
Azlan says:

December 5, 2011 at 2:07 pm

I’ve never heard of anyone going for a 6 cell VLS! The design also looks a bit top heavy.

Reply
Yes its a six VLS most probably for Aster 15
kamal says:

December 5, 2011 at 3:49 pm

Recession already hit us although not that bad because of the pump priming by the gomen, especially the RM60 billion MRT and the ever expanded budget of the LCCT from RM2billion to RM4 billion to name a fewla. The issue is whether gomen should borrow some more to pump primed the economy next year, given our Debt to GDP ration is almost 54% and revenue only inching by about only RM3 billion to nRM189 billion.

So whether we should go ahead with this RM6 billion SGPV project, your guess is as good as mine but not having it also will create a capability gap in the future, especially we will rely more and more from oil money and less and less from other commodities and E&E sector. Not having a strong deterrrent force to protect our deep offshore oilfield could invite troble in the future. Currently we would have to rely on the 2 lekiu and 4 laksamana and 2 scorpene as deterrent. kasturi AFAIK is going through upgrades right.
Azlan says:

December 5, 2011 at 6:23 pm

Ym Lee – Would it not be better to upgrade the existing 6 NGPV? Arm them to the hilt as these ships are here, ready and available.

We don’t need new hulls in the water to go to war but to patrol our waters and meet our other daily operational commitments!! Even if we fit out the Kedah class with missiles, the fact remains that the RMN is still very over stretched….
nalzar says:

December 5, 2011 at 10:56 pm

Not bad.It should be called a corvette though. Not a frigate. The guns should be bigger. When the anti ship missile is out, thats when the gun comes in. They have more ammo. Like the ole day.
Ree says:

December 6, 2011 at 9:41 am

4 ESSM missiles can fit into 1 Mk 41 VLS cell. An 8-Cell Mk 41 VLS would mean up to 32 ESSM.
Ym Lee says:

December 6, 2011 at 11:41 am

Yes we should buy only what we can afford.See, the Europeans are all selling their planes, their tanks, their ships now as they can no longer afford them.
So even if we need to stretch our resources so be it until the good time is here again ad we can afford them.
Newbie says:

December 6, 2011 at 11:44 am

Marhalim,
In total how many ESSM will it carry?
Hui says:

December 6, 2011 at 11:49 am

Azlan,
The quantity vs Hjhquality debates always let me rethink why we need LCS anyways. I cannot resist to think what if we scrap the whole NGPV thing, keep a dozen of 3000 tons heavy armed frigate, and the rest of them let it be sub 1000 tons gun boats?

Reply
There is talk about the NGPV being pushed to MMEA when the re-capitalisation plan for RMN is complete. Now that is far distance memory
Azlan says:

December 6, 2011 at 2:27 pm

Hui,

I’m still convinced that for peacetime/daily patrols, we need a class of 1,300 tonne OPVs, fitted out with nothing too fancy [then again, peacetime constabulary type roles like these are intended to be performed by the MMEA]. Anything smaller than that would result in sea keeping issues and endurance limitations. The RMN is on record as saying it wanted 6 Lekiu class frigates and the LCS is meant to fulfill that requirement. The question now is whether we still have the cash to fully fit out the LCS as the RMN would want – with torps and a towed array. The model shown however is not at 2,500 tonnes displacement but more like 1,500 tonnes or slightly more.

Nalzar,

You can’t fit a 127mm or a 155mm gun on a vessel that size. Also, unless the RMN sees a need for the naval gunfire role, like most major NATO navies, it makes sense to stick to 76mm or 57mm, as these smaller calibres are more useful for the anti-air role. In theory, the gun also acts as a last ditch defence against any missiles that make it past the shipboard missiles…….
mike says:

December 6, 2011 at 3:08 pm

nalzar,

with that kind of equipment fitted onboard, and the size/displacement of the ship – corvette is not the right classification for that ship!

cheers!
fird says:

December 6, 2011 at 3:09 pm

Only 8 fully operational vessels to patrol the whole stretch of our water! This is absolutely absurd! If YM Lee is in the navy he would quit today. No wonder our sea is pirate infested. We need the ships, period.
Newbie says:

December 6, 2011 at 3:34 pm

Azlan,
I believe the model is more likely similar to the F400 frigate (which have displacement approx 4000+ tonnes) than other gowind types.The beam (broad overall) stated in the picture 16m, for sure the displacement will exceeds 2500+ tonnes.
Azlan says:

December 6, 2011 at 6:17 pm

fird,

Pirate activity in the Melaka Straits [even before the ''Eyes In the Sky'' initiative] and the Sulu Sea have dropped drastically and our waters are not pirate infested! Its the waters south of Singapore, in the Riau islands, that are pirate infested.
FareedLHS says:

December 6, 2011 at 8:16 pm

What the RMN needs is a reasonable long term plan that takes into account all variables. Instead what we have had thus far is haphazard. Planning has been atrocious, procurement has been in ‘fits and starts’, and so on and so on.

Until the government gets its act together and common sense, good judgement, professional organization, etcetera rule the day, it’s all just talk…

Reply
The problem is that aspiration exceeds the funding.
RedDot says:

December 6, 2011 at 9:01 pm

i just read an article in Janes stating,that actually the navy prefered the sigma class rather than the Gowind,and even the navy is unable to choose what armament they want cause the shipyard involved will choose the armament for the Gowind themselves as advised by the foreign partner…pity the navy boys is it true??

Reply
Its not about Sigma, its about DCNS.
Its not the weapons, its the CMS
RedDot says:

December 6, 2011 at 9:28 pm

by the way 6 cell MK41 equates 24 missles???im confuse here please enlighten me,are we talking about the vertical launch missiles meant for anti aircraft or anti-ship missiles which are boxed at the rear part of the ship??
by the way,honestly speaking Malaysia dont need too advance warcraft,what Malaysia need is the Kedah class in large quantity with or without armament.uniformity in armament in all of its warcraft classes.arent Malaysia tergesa gesa making decision?just an example, prior to Malaysia bought the PARS armoured vehicle,turkey defence company produce yet another 8×8 armoured vehicle named Amani if i got the spelling correct,with conventional placement of engine oppose to PARS design n of cause much better than PARS.

Reply
Its an eight cell VLS as I had corrected. If its really a Mk 41 launcher it could be fitted with 32 ESSMs. This is for air defence although the latest variant have limited anti-ship capability. The ASM launchers are placed amidships.
RedDot says:

December 6, 2011 at 10:40 pm

Sorry to post many questions,im not sure which type of Gowind is Malaysia buying,cause in Janes it highlighted Gowind have got 4 types of warcraft,frigate,covette,OPV,etc all using similar hull but different fittings pls highlights

Reply
Its the 109 metres version?
Tomahawk says:

December 6, 2011 at 10:51 pm

This is a French ship with on board French systems. It wont be ESSMs. In fact, you would need illuminators for ESSM semi active missiles which are not installed on board this ship. It is likely to be VL-MICA or Crotale VTI with Sylver VLS launcher. You can quad-pack the Crotale VT1 missile into the Sylver A43/A50/A70 vls launchers. I doubt Asters will be bought as it will be too expensive.Go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylver_(missile_launcher)#Usage

Reply
On the Boustead Gowind Frigate model there is two Rheinmental FCR (most probably the same ones on Kedah) forward and aft a similar arrangement on the Meko100 design displayed at Lima 2009 also by the company.
On the DCNS Gowind model there is no illuminators shown as they are supposed to be hidden inside the mast which carries most of sensors.
Yes the DCNS Gowind got a six cell VLS launcher but not the Boustead version
nalzar says:

December 6, 2011 at 11:47 pm

For me it\’s too small to be a frigate. Like other nations for example the Russian, their frigate is over 140 meters long. Even the German frigate almost or over the same lenght. The big gun is still needed for the fire support and anti ship when the antiship missiles is out. In battles, we cannot guarantee an anti missile ship will always hit a target. They may be decoyed by the target decoys, jammed by target jammer, shot down by target anti missile missile and shot down by close in weapon system. I do apologize if my comment is wrong.

Reply
Its a light frigate just like the Jebat but an FFG nonetheless. A 4000 tonnes frigate is more like a destroyer. Moreover we don’t have the facilities to support the ships at the moment. That’s why the navy passed the Type 26 and Type 27 frigates offered by the Brits
[email protected] says:

December 7, 2011 at 8:27 am

I agree with Ym Lee. we should buy MPSS/LPD ships and upgrade existing Kedah instead of buying new LCS. Priority is important.
anon says:

December 7, 2011 at 1:14 pm

This buy is a huge mistake. Going by the very poor record of My defence companies, we are very likely be looking at another project that will overrun and will be requiring a bailout from the gomen.
The RMN should anticipate that the ships will probably be coming online in 10 years or more.

To mitigate this huge risk, the RMN should equipped the Kedah PV with the planned fitted for weaponary, instead of trying to pass it off to the MMEA. They will be stuck with the Kedah for a very, very long time!

Reply
LTAT is backing the deal as it is the parent company of Boustead. Unless they do another Amin Shah, which is unlikely, as the old PSC became his own personal piggy back then. Over-runs and delays are of course part of doing business, especially for a new system.
FareedLHS says:

December 7, 2011 at 7:25 pm

New article in Aviaton Week (I don’t mean to ‘steal your thunder’ Marhalim):

Russia Works Hard To Woo Malaysia Into Fighter Buy

AWIN First Dec 06 , 2011
Leithen Francis [email protected]
LANGKAWI, Malaysia

Russian arms export agency Rosoboronexport is highlighting its commitment to Malaysia in its effort to win a new contract for 18 fighters.

Reply
I stop writing “hopes and wishes” story a long time ago, Fareed especially for Malaysiandefence is concern….
FareedLHS says:

December 7, 2011 at 8:16 pm

Considering the Chinese President’s recent comments, I wonder how exactly the government plans to respond in the event of Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. Are we going to send out the ‘washtub navy’ (http://images.travelpod.com/users/rjdemp/1.1297955536.washtub-boats.jpg)?!

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8490274&c=ASI&s=SEA

From the article:

In a translation of Hu’s comments, the official Xinhua news agency quoted the president as saying China’s navy should “make extended preparations for warfare.”

Reply
Sometimes its better to wait out and see the outcome..
Azlan says:

December 8, 2011 at 2:52 pm

FareedLHS – ”Considering the Chinese President’s recent comments, I wonder how exactly the government plans to respond in the event of Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.”

The comments were made for domestic consumption and were intended for the U.S. and Australia.

nalzar – ”For me it\’s too small to be a frigate. Like other nations for example the Russian, their frigate is over 140 meters long. Even the German frigate almost or over the same length. The big gun is still needed for the fire support and anti ship when the antiship missiles is out.”

There is no firm yardstick on how to classify naval ships as various navies have their own way of doing it. Take the Kasturi class, since it entered service it has been classified as a frigate, light frigate and corvette. The INs new Delhi class is classified as a destroyer, yet it can also be classified as a light cruiser. About the guns, what makes you so sure that any future engagement will lead to ASMs running out and the opposing ships getting into gun range? The main value of the gun, for the RMN, is as an AA platform. Providing naval gunfire support, for which you would need something larger than a 57mm or a 76mm gun, is not part of our doctrine.
Ashraf says:

December 9, 2011 at 12:57 am

Sorry to say that China IS NOT OUR ENEMY. They could have conquered Malay land centuries ago if they wished for it. Besides sparing Malaysia to China is like David vs Goliath. Our immediate threat would probably be protecting our sovereignty and the neighbouring countries such as Indonesia, Singapore, Thais and the Pinoys. As such it is necessary to plan the threats as they are. Comparatively we should be as solid and small size militarily and able to challenge Singapore in terms the hardware and the software. Only than we’ll be respected by others and not to be messed with.

Reply
No need to be sorry when you disagree with something or someone including me on the site.
Hui says:

December 9, 2011 at 10:46 am

Ashraf,
Well I assumed you are not from a Chinese descendant. Anyways, if you are familiar with the Chinese history enough, the general conclusion for not to exercise a solid influence in the region is one of the key factors that ultimately caused China to be an “uprising power” instead of “one of THE powers” through out the whole 16-21 century. And due to this “modern enlightenment” you have the Korea war and Viet-sino war. Although now they learned that was too “pro-active” or “aggressive” which either word suits your taste. But as they grow stronger, to the point that they gained confidence to achieve certain goal without the painful trade-off suffered in the past experience, they will flex their muscles.
Wan1988 says:

December 9, 2011 at 6:46 pm

In term of threats, we hav 3 major external threats; China, Indonesia and Singapore. We have overlapping territorial claims with China and Indonesia which can threaten our O&G activities. O&G being 40% of govt income will made it clear that they are a threat to our economy and land. With Indonesia beefing up their Air Force and building armoured formations in the borders of Sarawak, we can’t take our eyes off them. Singapore threat is more of a stigma from the past. We both don’t want war but that is no reason to belittle the strongest military force on South East Asia that have Shimon Peres and Obama on their back.

Pinoy is no threat to us due to their own insurgency-oriented and outdated military machines(no fighter jets and modern frigates). They has China to care about anyway. Thai have been friendly to us ever since Malaysia was born, they even help us in the insurgency and they are also busy with the Burmesse, Cambodia and their own insurgency.
Azlan says:

December 9, 2011 at 7:36 pm

Asharf ”able to challenge Singapore in terms the hardware and the software. Only than we’ll be respected by others and not to be messed with.”

Total nonsense!!!! First of all, Singapore is not a threat and we can’t ”challenge” them as they have a 1] bigger economy 2] bigger defence budget 3] a fraction of our operational responsibilities [by virtue of Malaysia being about 50 times, if not more, larger in land mass!!]. We’ll be ”respected” when we can truly manage our armed forces and when the politicians stop interfering and gambling with our national security, not when we can keep up with the Sings…. Has it ever occurred to you that our government, in private, welcomes a strong Singapore Armed Forces, as it can act as a buffer against the Indonesians??

The only country that could possibly be involved in a conflict or a clash with us is Indonesia…. Do you think it’s a coincidence the TNI-AUs Flankers are based in Sulawesi, where they can be over Ambalat in 20 minutes? The TNI-AU has also built a small airbase in Tarakan which is near Tawau and Ambalat and has also announced that UAVs will be based there. As they say – history has an annoying habit of repeating itself.
FareedLHS says:

December 9, 2011 at 8:11 pm

Azlan,

I disagree with part of your analysis, specifically “we can’t ‘challenge’ them [Singapore]“. While I agree that Singapore is not our enemy, let me play devil’s advocate for a moment. The fact is that considering the small size of Singapore, all other traditional measurements of power would be of little or no practical value. An aggressor could blanket the whole of Singapore with so much ordnance that a mouse wouldn’t survive. This is why Singapore has planned for expeditionary warfare (taking the fight directly to the territory of any aggressor, be it Indonesia, Malaysia or other), and stationed a large proportion of its equipment and personnel overseas. We can challenge them, hence their massive defence expenditures and forward defence planning. Would be in our interests to ever go to war with Singapore? Of course not! And as you said, we tacitly approve of Singapore’s defence posture as a hedge against the Indonesians.

Further, I find it foolish that some people continue to perceive Indonesia as an archenemy of Malaysia. We should be doing what we can to cement a strong relationship with all of our neighbors, including those with which we share such strong ethno-religious bonds. We should strive to do more to improve our image in Indonesia, to prevent such resentment against Malaysia, so prevalent among the Indonesians. We are seen, like the Singaporeans and others, as the ‘takers’. We ‘take’ their resources, we look down at them as low-class servants, good for nothing but cheap manual labor and maid services. These attitudes need to change.
Syameer says:

December 9, 2011 at 8:30 pm

Agreed with Azlan. Singapore is not a major threat to our nation security. We even have the military treaty with Singapore, the FPDA. Indonesia might be the possible threat for a very obvious reason. Once again, we can’t keep up with the Singaporeans when it comes to military development because we just cannot luxuriously spend a lot of money on defense since we have other more important projects to develop our economy unlike the Singapore, which is already a developed country with strong and stable economy.
Tomahawk says:

December 10, 2011 at 12:52 pm

This is a good blog with a diversity of views.

Interesting different view about Singapore and the region from Janes – Singapore to spend USD $23 billion on defence purchases by 2015:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/singapore-defence-idINDEE7B707820111208

* The author forgot to note that Singapore is designing and building 12-14 new naval ships to replace the Fearless class (which are less than 20 years old).These ships will be bigger and stealthier and could even be more Formidables or varients.

* There has been talk about an indigenous tank for some time and that it is undergoing testing. If so, Singapore will be the 3rd country after Japan and South Korea to design and build its own tank. Not too sure about th dimensions as SEA’s topography has changed a lot. I will not be surprised if it is somewhere between a light and heavy MBT.
nimitz says:

December 10, 2011 at 2:10 pm

FFG eh?….if this model go thru, let’s look and see if it can sail over the PV Kedah Fiasco.
nalzar says:

December 10, 2011 at 2:21 pm

The recent spat with Indonesia this few years like the storming of our embassy at Jakarta, about the Kuda kepang dance and etc. are very suspicious in nature.I think theres a conspiracy that wanted break Indonesia close relationship with our country.
Hui says:

December 10, 2011 at 2:49 pm

anyways, I contacted my colleague, there were two models shown, and the one above here is indeed with a 2*8 cell VLS in front.
FareedLHS says:

December 10, 2011 at 11:15 pm

Re: “Once again, we can’t keep up with the Singaporeans when it comes to military development because we just cannot luxuriously spend a lot of money on defense since we have other more important projects to develop our economy unlike the Singapore, which is already a developed country with strong and stable economy.” – Syameer

Not to get to far off topic… but, we should be asking ourselves, why is it that Singapore is so far ahead developmentally, economically, militarily, etc.? Granted, the hand that Singapore was dealt following the end of British colonialism, was markedly better in many areas than Malaysia, but for how long can that be an excuse? Ask yourself, how is it possible that a state of only 4 million citizens, with no natural resources, occupying only a speck of territory, is so able to outperform its neighbors? At least in the case of Israel dominating its region, we can point a finger at the billions in direct US assistance provided to Israel’s economy and military. I for one blame the incompetence of our nation’s leaders.
Azlan says:

December 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm

FaredLHS -”Further, I find it foolish that some people continue to perceive Indonesia as an archenemy of Malaysia.”

And I find it totally absurd that anyone with even the slightest interest in Malaysian military affairs or regional security matters could fail to grasp that due to geo-political and historical factors, it is Indonesia that poses the most challenges to this country. It is also Indonesia that military planners in this country have been most concerned with, the past few decades. I’m not sure what you meant by ”arch-enemy” but my opinion is based on actual facts [that are plain to see] and not on emotions or speculation.

FareedLHS -”We should strive to do more to improve our image in Indonesia, to prevent such resentment against Malaysia, so prevalent among the Indonesians. We are seen, like the Singaporeans and others, as the ‘takers’.

From your comments one would get the impression that it is solely Malaysia’s fault that bilateral relations have suffered, which is an untruth or a fallacy. Granted, there are unresolved issues that the Indons have with us and vice versa, but the plain fact is that Malaysia has become a convenient outlet for bored, unemployed youths and neo-nationalist groups who have nothing better on their agenda to address. You suggested that our attitudes need to change, when in fact it is the attitudes of the Indons and how they percieve us that also needs changing!!!! Indonesian policy, since this country was ounded, has always been to ensure that they maintain a dominant diplomatic and political position, not only in ASEAN but also in toothless groupings like NAM and the OIC. And this policy has not changed.

FareddLHS -”We can challenge them, hence their massive defence expenditures and forward defence planning.”

First of all, what compelling reason would we have to ”challenge” them – to what end?
Given the size of our economy, we can either try to meet our existing operational obligations or try to play ”catch” with the Sings [to boost our egos and give us bragging rights on Merdeka Day], but we can’t do both……… To suggest that we can do otherwise would be wishful thinking.

FareedLHS – ”and stationed a large proportion of its equipment and personnel overseas. ”

Sorry but the main reason Singapore maintains training detachments abroad is simply due to a lack of space. Protecting their assets in case of a Malaysian or Indonesian strike is secondary……….

FareedLHS – ”At least in the case of Israel dominating its region, we can point a finger at the billions in direct US assistance provided to Israel’s economy and military.”

Other factors come into play -

1]Unconditional U.S. support for Israel that dates from the Cold War period when the majority of Arab states were Soviet clients with socialist leanings.
2]The very influential Jewish lobby such as APIC.
nimitz says:

December 14, 2011 at 2:31 pm

These new hulls with new designs not related to Meko 100 later makes us having many types of FFG equivalent hulls on the water. Wonder how to overcome logistic, support and MRO complexity. It’s akin to a family with tight budget owning proton,mitsubishi,toyota,nissan cars at a same time.
FareedLHS says:

December 14, 2011 at 11:18 pm

Re: Azlan

I find it rather interesting that you feel the need to attempt to dissect and counter anyone who you perceive to disagree with you…

Anyway, allow let me dissect and counter your points.

- Indonesia threat

Let me repeat what I said: “I find it foolish that some people continue to perceive Indonesia as an archenemy of Malaysia.”

Now let me quote part of your response: “I’m not sure what you meant by ”arch-enemy” but my opinion is based on actual facts [that are plain to see] and not on emotions or speculation.”

So you are not even sure what I said, yet you are so quick to attack. Let me explain what an ‘archenemy’ is. An archenemy is a principal enemy. And in this case an enemy is one defined as being a military adversary, a hostile unit or force. So, for example, North Korea is the ‘archenemy’ of South Korea. Further example, Hezbollah is the ‘archenemy’ of Israel. So, as defined, do I perceive Indonesia as an ‘archenemy’ of Malaysia? No. Do I see Indonesia as a threat? Absolutely. But that is a totally different question! And as for your “facts [that are plain to see]“, I do not see an official policy of belligerence on the part of Indonesia toward Malaysia, as one would see from an archenemy such as North Korea. I do not see daily threats to turn KL into a sea of fire coming from the mouth of Indonesia’s president. Are there tensions? Definitely. Is there jingoism in the streets of Jakarta? For sure.

- Indonesia image

We can only work on improving our image. We do not have control over others. Let us set a better example and perhaps others will follow. If we all wait for the others’ attitudes to change, nothing will change. Indonesia is not blameless, but neither is Malaysia. I routinely see with my own eyes the bias shown toward Indonesians by arrogant Malays who think they are better than others. Malays even discriminate against other Malays of perceived lower class. Classism is endemic in Malay society.

- Singapore challenge

Starting from my original post… Do you understand what it means to play ‘devil’s advocate’? It means, let me take a position that is not my own for the sake of discussion. So, as I said “I agree that Singapore is not our enemy”. I was merely pointing out that we can challenge them. That does not mean that I suggest that we do so.

- Singapore overseas

Point taken. However, I believe both reasons are main reasons.

- Israeli dominance

I never intend for my comments to be end-all, say-all posts. Of course, there are other factors to Israel’s dominance. If I had to account for every angle to every sentence that I ever wrote, Marhalim would exceed his site storage capacity rather quickly! Btw, that is AIPAC and there is a good book titled ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’, written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, on the very issue of the Jewish lobby. It was a very good read.

Lastly, relax.
nimitz says:

December 15, 2011 at 1:26 pm

SAF and MAF are worlds apart in almost everything but they are closer that we think (see FDPA) so IMHO Sing is our dependable ally rather that a threat (BTW ATC Changi still control our airspace in south SCS, just ask ATC KCH, so SAF will know earlier when bogies coming from the south). Most of us will agree that TLDM need more hulls in the water for; preparation for naval war, patrol enforce protect EEZ maritime claims, Spartly claims,watch out Abusayaf off East Sabah,protect SLOC between malaya-borneo n deterrence force. I believe no point TLDM be at par with RSN now, TLDM just be TLDM lah (be ourself!!). Now focus on BNS. With this co-op with DCNS what they get? (apart from the $$$)hopefully; manpower training,supplier training, latest mgmt technique, latest process control,latest warship fabrication techniques,latest materiel processing,latest CAD/CAM,rights on design etc. Perhaps years from now we see a hybrid meko-gowind offerred by BNS. I still could not make sense why BNS abandon the Kraut, keep aside the Limey and embrace the Frenchy (maybe Paris is a finer city to visit compared to London n Berlin?). Why BNS can’t co-op with ROK,Rusky,ChiComm or ASEAN warship builders to fulfill TLDM requirements? At least if BNS stick with meko and offer a similar upgraded design, when things going from bad to worse for TLDM, we can cannibalise spares from one or 2 hulls to keep up with minimum hull numbers for operational deployment. I still believe in commonality and numbers. Is 6 Gowind-class ships a bang for the buck? I feel more secure if TLDM have more meko based hulls operationally rather than a collection of different designed hulls with capabilities not far in between. I see TLDM similar to a family with tight budget in economic crises owning cars of proton, mitsubishi, honda, toyota, GM, chevrolet 1.5 auto. If we go for Gowind,is BNS capable to provide MRO efectively for our collections of very different FFGs? Are we sure we can sustain its operation without any raise in taxes? Do we get the purported return of investment? Is Gowind worth our our hard earned money (in picture and on website everything looks rosy,but beware of the rose’s thorns)? I wonder why TLDM and GOM follow the Euro navy format(multiple designs for the same class of ship). Why we can’t emulate USN and GOUSA? (stick to a design for a class of ship, just improve as times goes by,sustain it for avery long time, get it in large numbers..a fine example is Oliver Hazard Ferry FFG).

Reply
It is not BNS decision, it was the political decision,
Azlan says:

December 15, 2011 at 2:10 pm

FareedLHS,

I was under the impression that the reason most, if not all of us, are here is to share thoughts/opinions on matters of common interest, relating to defence – what’s this stuff about ”dissecting”? And if indeed I have this habit, perhaps Marhalim [as the blog owner] is the right person to point it out? And if anything that I have posted is inaccurate or untrue, please point it out and explain why my statements are wrong.

I understand fully what you meant and I’m not in the business of being quick to ”attack” anyone. The facts that are ”plain” to see, that I referred to, is Indonesia’s longstanding policy of ensuring they remain ahead of us in the political and diplomatic fields regionally, historical factors, ongoing disputes, internal problems there that could effect us, and other factors, not any official Indonesian confrontational policy towards us.

P.S. I haven’t read the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt book, but Robert Fisk’s ”the Great War for Civilisation” is also a good read.
Azlan says:

December 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm

nimitz,

A very large part of the problem is our longstanding policy of awarding major defence contracts based on the amount of technology transfers, offsets various companies can provide us, as well as other political factors – logic and other considerations are secondary. Whilst politics plays a major part in defence deals in almost every country, we have taken it to a whole new level and in the process have f*****d ourselves, not to mention pouring good cash down the drain. Unfortunately, it looks like this policy is yet to continue under Najib’s government.
Whilst companies like British Aerospace had a lot of political pull in the 1990′s, it appears that position has now been taken over by the French. As you rightly mentioned, the most sensible option would have been to stick to the Germans and worked on an improved variant of the Meko100A.
ali says:

December 23, 2011 at 1:43 pm

hottest news from indonesia, their fast craft trimaran will ready for next mont, and if this prototype succeded sea trial, they will get another trimaran FAC. and they will equipe their trimaran with C802 antiship missile.

Boustead to go with Gowind. Updated with picture

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

May 2013
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Apr
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31