PNS Azmat and the Patrol Boat Conundrum

PETALING JAYA: Pakistani Navy newly commissioned fast attack craft missile, PNS Azmat is on a four day official to Malaysia from May 16 to 19. The ship is berthed at RMN Tanjung Gelang base in Kuantan. The picture below is courtesy of the RMN.

PNS Azmat

The ship which was inducted into Pak Navy on April 23, is on an Asean tour as part of its shakedown cruise home. It will be going to Indonesia next. According to news report from the Pakistan, the Azmat was built at China State Shipbuilding Company, Xingang Shipyard. The ship is equipped with eight C-802A/CSS-N-8 Saccade anti-ship missiles and a CIWS gun (from the picture I believe its a twin 37mm mount.

The Pakistan news reports also stated that the Azmat, is the first of the class, with second ship to be build in Karachi shipyard. The reports also stated that Azmat Class Fast Attack Craft (Missile) has a crew of 12 to 14 sailors which is less than half that of similar FAC (M). Each FAC (M) will cost of around $50 million each.

Could and should we build a similar vessel?. Its not rocket science but the fact that nuclear-armed Pakistan needs technology transfer from China to build an FAC shows that its military industrial complex is not as sophisticated as we think.

As for Malaysia, we had the capability via Hong Leong Lurssen shipyard which had built similar vessels (Jerong class) in the past. The capability however was allowed to lapse after building six boats. They continued building smaller patrol crafts for the police and other government agencies but when money was available for re-capitalisation in the late 80s and 90s, the navy (and most probably the government) procured bigger boats. When they procure FAC-sized boats, they went overseas (Mahamiru and Laksamana class). And when the time the New Generation Patrol Boats came along, well do I need to say more?

Now with both the navy and MMEA patrolling with 30-old FAC and patrol boats, the need for such capability remained unfulfilled.

In the meantime, NGV Tech Sdn Bhd is building two 75 metre training boats for the navy. The boats are supposed to be armed with guns and used for training only but it wouldnt be difficult to up-gunned them with missiles, ASMs and SAMs.

Since we already paid for the rights to the design of the training ship from Daewoo, it would be wise for us to use the same basic hull to recapitalise RMN and MMEA patrol fleet. The MMEA boats could maintain the training ships guns-only design but the navy could upgrade them with ASM and SAMs.

A number of hulls could also be built for the mine warfare duties. What about the CMS and radar? We could always buy the Tacticos from Thales as well as the radar from them. MBDA, Boeing, BAE Systems and Oto Melara will be knocking on our door to sell missiles and guns.

It could be done of course but do we really need to prepare a working paper?

–Malaysian Defence

With A Little Bit of Money and Imagination PETALING JAYA: In my post on the launch of the ...
The Armed Forces Takes A Back Seat…NGPV or SGPV edited SHAH ALAM: Its confirmed now, the SGPV, formally the NGPV ...
PCU Gagah Samudera SHAH ALAM: RMN's first 75 metre training ship, pre-commissioning unit ...
Did Indonesia Tip The Balance? Edited to Add Another View * Edited to add the view of Tim Huxley. PETALING JAYA: ...
Things for Sabah SSA SHAH ALAM: Its interesting to note one of the most ...

35 Responses to "PNS Azmat and the Patrol Boat Conundrum"

Azlan says:

May 18, 2012 at 7:02 pm

My guess is that the RMN has decided that the days of FACs size vessels and small corvettes [in the Malaysian context] are over and that in the future all combat roles will be performed by vessels the size of the Kedah class, at minimum. Which will mean that the Perdana, Handalan and Jeriong class will not be replaced with similar size vessels in the future. A common problem most vessels the size of the Azmat face is seakeeping issues and endurance, but this will not be a problem if they are not used for roles they were not intended to perform. The lack of space on the Azmat means that only point defence air to surface missiles can be carried, which is allright as long as it doesn’t come into contact with enemy aircraft. Vessels this size IMO, would be ideal for the MMEA for routine patrol duties – assuming off course cash can be found.

Reply
The problem is that the aspiration does not fit the funding.
... says:

May 18, 2012 at 9:47 pm

IMO small ships of 300-800tonnes displacement still have a place in littoral situations around Malaysia.

Look at Indonesia, which is locally building KCR40 FAC(M)’s and South Korea which is building the superb gumdoksuri KCX ships (for only $38Mil a ship!).

I still see a need for fast small missile armed ships within the navy for interdiction of hostile ships and area denial of littoral areas around langkawi; straits of Melaka; around tioman islands and waters around kudat, pulau banggi, sandakan and semporna.

The former Hong Leong Luerssen Shipyard still has the capability of building FAC’s as demonstrated recently building ships for Nigeria’s Navy

http://www.aerialmarine.com/assets/Uploads/AttachedFiles/images/Suncraft4.jpg

http://www.aerialmarine.com/assets/Uploads/AttachedFiles/images/Suncraft3.jpg
nimitz says:

May 18, 2012 at 11:46 pm

The problem is that the aspiration does not fit the funding…I’m interested with Marhalim’s idea of building up patrol vessels based on NGV-Daewoo training-class vessel design for Maritim. But I’m inclined to say that for TLDM better stick to Kedah class hulls so that better endurance for deployment at Stesen Peninjau and Ops Pasir. All depends on funding, though. Perhaps hotspot over spratly become hotter then GOM silently beef up MAf and Maritim.
MeesterT says:

May 19, 2012 at 8:11 am

Zu-23 type gun.
MeesterT says:

May 19, 2012 at 8:29 am

This was thrashed out almost 20 years ago, when the RMN was a ‘weak force’ doctrine navy similar to the Baltic navies. Ergo the subs, MCM and FACs. Operating in green waters with air cover.
Focusing on the Straits of Malacca to ensure navigation in times of strife, within the framework of FDPA and our relationship with the US. The Cold War went away and we were seduced by the idea of green-blue.
Remember, a weak force navy is by definition usually affordable and bijoux. This limits the possible opportunities and prestige……

We were considered amongst the top MCM navies as we worked the horrendous conditions of the Selat Melaka.
Azlan says:

May 20, 2012 at 2:13 am

It was not so much a matter I think of being ‘seduced’ by green/blue water spirations but the fact that since the end of the Cold War, Malaysia has been faced with new challenges and threats. Even during the Cold War, the backbone of the RMN – the 24 Vosper built Kedah, Sabah and Keric class PCs – were inadequate for the task at hand. They were forced to operate in sea conditions they were never designed to and their size and endurance was a problem – this was not so much of a problem for littoral ‘weak force’ navies like Denmark, Sweden, etc, which tended to operate mostly in areas closer to shore and were not required to operate the disctances that the RMN was required to. Is it for this reason I think, that the RMN has decided that at minimum, all frontline combatants will be at minimum the displacement of the Kedah class. Operating larger vessels will be more expensive but will have its operational advantages.
kamal says:

May 20, 2012 at 10:22 am

Next 5 years mana ada duit. If current govt still rules, money will be spent on mega infrastructure projects such as the MRT, if there is a change in govt, subsidies will be doubled so tell me where can we find the money to pay for Kedah size vessels at big numbers?
nimitz says:

May 20, 2012 at 7:05 pm

Does someone knows the name of TLDM training vessels currently built by NGV? FDPA still confined itself to West Malaysia and Singapore? So if PRC decides to execute sea control over Spratlys, FDPA can jump into the fray or no? If TLDM planning to do “power projection” to Indian Ocean from Langkawi, the best asset they have to do that now is those subs. Any updates on Ops Fajar 2012?

Reply
No names yet slated for the training ships. FDPA is technically for the defence of the peninsula and Singapore. Sabah and Sarawak and the EEZ are not included. But it could be used as a legal basis for UK, Australia and New Zealand to intervene in a conflict in these part of the world though with the current economic situation they will be hard pressed to do much.
Power projection with two SSKs and for what? We don’t have much claim north of Langkawi.
Ops Fajar continues, I believed the Bunga Mas Lima joined Bunga Mas 6 recently and the latter is expected to return home shortly.
Azlan says:

May 20, 2012 at 11:21 pm

Nimitz,

The FPDA is not a binding agreement like NATO and Britain, Australia and New Zealand are not compelled to automaticlly assist Malaysia or Singapore if both come under external threats.

…..,

The ROKNs smaller ships, like the Gumdoksuri class, are meant to perform inshore roles, much closer to ashore than our ships are required to. Why do you think they have much larger ships like the KDX 3?
MeesterT says:

May 20, 2012 at 11:27 pm

The Inderasakti was your classic tender ship. The plan and stucture was sound, in a time when there were no naval facilities in Sabah & Sarawak.
The subs were the ‘blue water’ aspect of the weak force, the hidden threat. The success of the Dutch sub force in WWII was the template.
anon says:

May 21, 2012 at 2:49 pm

Looks like RMN is serious about getting the Perry class frigates. They have drop the Whidbey LSD.
I would rather they try to get the surplus frigates from Italy e.g. maestrale frigates as there are some commonality with the Laksamana class corvettes like the IPN20 CMS, Otomat missile and albatross SAM system etc but I’m not the navy chief so…

the FFG7 looks under-armed. Perhaps as a low cost upgrade, we could add a Mk29 box launcher in place of the former Mk13 launcher. The Mk29 can launch ESSM missiles and would not need major structural changes compared to the Mk41.
The FFG7 FCR can support the ESSM if the Stir than was in-place, now removed, is reinstated.
Any other ideas ?

Reply
The Aussie spend around US$1 billion or around US$300 million to fit their OHP frigates with with new VLS launchers. Do we have the money to upgrade them?
... says:

May 21, 2012 at 7:04 pm

@Azlan

That inshore roles are what TLDM will see in Selat Melaka. So “our” ships don’t have to operate in Selat Melaka, around langkawi? Why does UAE which operate in narrow Persian gulf aquire new FAC like ships? Are our focus on South China Sea make us lose focus on Selat Melaka? Littoral areas need agile, fast ships. US Navy Litoral fighting concept assumes them fighting on foreign shores, hence needing large ships, which might not actually be ideal for fighting in shallow littorals choked with islands. We on the other hand, are defending our own shores, as is countries like UAE, South Korea. Hence the small agile fighting ships. We need big ships (6 NGPV, 6 SGPV, 2 Lekius) for South China Sea and power projections beyond, but we still need the small ships (4 laksamana, and about 8 new FAC’s or fast small corvettes) for fighting near our shores. Yes it is an area meant for MMEA, but MMEA ships wont be a deterrent for all out war scenario’s. Just look at South Korea, yes it has a strong coast guard, but it still has small corvettes like gumdoksuri.
FareedLHS says:

May 22, 2012 at 1:01 am

A few points:

Regarding the FPDA: Even if the UK, Australia and New Zealand were to provide there complete support in the event of conflict between China and Malaysia/Singapore… 1. How would they be able to deploy? Outside of the USAF and USN, no one else has the airlift and sealift capacities to rapidly deploy a large force. 2. Would their limited forces be able to seriously contest the PLAAF and PLAN?

Regarding comparing South Korea and Malaysia:

2011 Defence Expenditures:

South Korea: 28280 (2.7% GDP)
Malaysia: 4223 (1.6% GDP)

(expenditures in million USD (2010))

South Korea can afford whatever hulls it wants. We can’t even afford the hulls we need.

Regarding the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates: My vote is an emphatic no.
Azlan says:

May 22, 2012 at 1:02 am

…….

The sea conditions in the Melaka Straits and at the northern approaches to the straits can be much rougher than in the Gulf and our ships tend to spend much longer at sea compared to those from the UAE. And unlike the RMN, the UAE navy does not have to deploy to territory 500 nautical miles away. As the UAE navy’s main operating area is in the enclosed Persian Gulf and it does not deploy further way from its bases or for extended periods, obviously the UAE navy has no need for anything bigger than FACs and corvettes.

Sea conditions in the Melaka Straits certainly do not get as rough as say in the North Atlantic or the Pacific but at times, can get much, much rougher than in the Persian Gulf. And again, ROKN ships like the Gumdoksuri class are meant to perform supporting roles in inshore areas, in support of larger ships against lesser threats, with more serious stuff being the responsibility of the KDX series of ships. There is a reason the ROKN has decided on vessels with displacement from 2,500 to 5,000 tonnes, and it is solely not due to prestige. I have nothing against small ships or FACS but am merely pointing out that a lot depends on a navy’s doctrine and operational requirements. I would also like to add, that despite advances in technology, the traditional problems that have faced FACs for decades remain – a low freeboard that can effect the performance of onboard sensors and excessive vibration, when moving at high speeds, which can effect machinery and weaponry. And off course the inability of FACs, due to their size, to adequately defend themselves against aircraft that are armed with more than free fall bombs and unguided rockets.
MeesterT says:

May 22, 2012 at 1:37 am

Littoral tak seksi. Worse, all the bot2 kechil (love the retro) can be commanded by a Lt. Kmdr. Not even Kmdr or Kpt.

MMEA is not a warfighting force nor is it going to do stuff like MCM and ASW. Unless…RMN gives up those roles. Then you end up with patrol cutters that are cluttered with barang2 lain.

Focus. See the disaster that is ex-Deepwater.
anon says:

May 22, 2012 at 9:13 am

>The Aussie spend around US$1 billion or around US$300 million to fit their OHP frigates with with new VLS launchers. Do we have the money to upgrade them?

They spent that much because they wanted to retain the Mk13 launcher, upgrade it to support SM2 missile plus they also want to add the Mk41 VLS launcher which required major structural change.

The ex-US OHP no longer have the Mk13 launcher.
That is why I suggested adding a Mk29 box launcher in its place as a low cost upgrade. The number of ready ESSM missiles in a box launcher is the same as the Aussie Mk41 additiona, 8 missiles.

As for FAC(M), they are still needed in Peninsular Malaysia. Though not sexy like frigates, very useful to counter anyone who intends to use the coastal hook strategy.
mirsy says:

May 22, 2012 at 3:56 pm

“Looks like RMN is serious about getting the Perry class frigates. They have drop the Whidbey LSD.”

I would have thought the LSD41 was more a priority than the OHPs. They make sense because the US will still operating them for sometime to come so spares no issue and transfer will be “hot”. This can be acquired while they ponder on the MPSS replacement. …. Or perhaps, some parties worried if the LSD41 then the proposed replacement from NGV Tech will not be realised.

Personnally rather than the OHPs, just armed the NGPVs cos it make sense. The amount personnel manning the two OHPs can manned the whole NGPVs flotilla.

But I forgeot “sense” is not part of the equation here.
Azlan says:

May 22, 2012 at 4:42 pm

No the MMEA is not meant to do stuff like ASW or MCM but it would be nice if the government would allocate cash for the MMEA to have a decent number of new ships to perform stuff fisheries protection, intercepting illegal immigrants, SAR, etc, so the RMN can concentrate on other stuff. The 2 training ships currently being built for the RMN, or a similar design, would be ideal. Nothing beyond a surface search radar, FLIR and a heli-deck would be required.

Sounds good in theory doesn’t it but MANA DUIT?

Reply
Since the MMEA will revert to the navy in a crisis, wouldnt it better for the ships to be fitted for missions like MCM since the boats are not supposed to be major combatants? It could be fitted for not but equipped concept with the mission equipment installed at least four times annually for certification and training.
MMEA actually wants a small number ships in its fleet to be around 100 metres long for EEZ patrol but with no money to spare, its just another long wish list.
MeesterT says:

May 22, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Actually useless in our experience. MCM is by far the toughest tasking. Unless they do MCM full time, they are better not doing it. You just end up having to proof sweep.

ASW sama. Best usage of MMEA is surveillance and maybe SF support, i.e. pemandu bas.

A common basic hull and bits is good for logistics. It has never been a priority though…..:(.

Reply
You are right of course, MCM and ASW are the toughest things to do in the navy. Even the US and NATO navies are having serious gaps in capabilities for MCM/ASW.
That said both are tasks that are suitable for MMEA during wartime since their ships were not designed for combat ops.. They are like road bump in the sea. Since they are there anyway might as well do MCM and ASW, which are surveillance work anyway but highly technical and mundane at the same time. It is a dirty job and depth charges are very low tech! The sort of thing we make in abundance locally.
MeesterT says:

May 22, 2012 at 11:16 pm

That mission in our waters is must better done with aircraft and UAVs. Water depth means that visual search is a goer in the shelf regions. Subchasers……not so much.

What the MMEA can do is deliver mines. Shhhhh…..

We should tap into the Sri Lankan Navy littoral experience before it goes away.

Simon
Azlan says:

May 23, 2012 at 3:01 am

As most of us know, MCM and ASW are extremely complex roles to learn and are very hard and expensive skills to acquire and to maintain proficiency, requiring lots of cash. And once lost, can’t be regained overnight, irrespective of how much money is made available [should tell the politicians this!]. Like many navies, we learnt MCM the hard way, with the Mahamiru [Ton]class. When everything, from the calibration of the paravane, to the wire sweeps, to the reeling in of the otters and kites, has to be done manually – with no UUVs and hi-defination sonar to help seek mines. When the Mahamiru [Lerici] class entered service in 1983, we had the most modern minehunters in the region, this was at any time when other regional navies were operating ‘hand me downs’ from other navies.
Azlan says:

May 23, 2012 at 3:30 am

mirsy,

The RMN is facing a severe shortage of hulls to perform daily peacetime requirements not a shortage of hulls to go to conflict with – that is why it wants the Perry’s and that is why arming the Kedah class will not change the fact that the RMN is facing a shortage of hulls. Of all the services, the RMN actually has a good sense of what it wants, based on what it actually needs.
MeesterT says:

May 23, 2012 at 7:50 am

It used to. When it had a long term plan and the ability to push it, as opposed to the current situation where it is being pushed.

The Perry’s are a bad idea, we lack the manpower to run them and the recom costs are going to make us cry.
mirsy says:

May 23, 2012 at 2:37 pm

Azlan,
I can agree with that.
But does two hulls make a difference, possibly yes because these 2 ships probably can be on station longer for purpose of flying the flag. This can be stop-gap prior to the arrival of the LCS.

But to invest hugely on these ship, I rather not. Just install 2 twin SSM and a RAM, requires minimum modification and on top of what it has and should make it awesome enough.

The savings could be used elsewhere anytime.

Correct me if I am wrong, the RMN quandary arise from the decision of the government in setting up the MMEA without fully going through the consequences of the action in details and preparing for it. It ended up “firefighting” all the time patching holes after the other.

A few recent example 6P and teacher revised grading among others. Sorry nothing political but wish the goverment can learn from this mistakes. Nothing political.

Reply
It is not just the MMEA. The problem started when they failed to recapitalise in the late 80s/early 90s despite knowing fully well that importance of defending our EEZ. The navy had in the late 70s or early 80s called for the re-capitalisation of the patrol forces which resulted in the NGPV programme. But the funding for the programme, which somehow turned into a corvette-sized ship, were only released in 1999!
The problem of lack of hulls again showed up during the Sipadan kidnapping and as an immediate measure they bought a number of CB90 boats.
Defence has always been the step-son of Malaysia.
Azlan says:

May 23, 2012 at 4:53 pm

I think the decision to ‘apply’ for the 35 odd year old Perrys only reinforces the fact that the RMN is very, very desperate for additional hulls! Assuming the LCS, which has yet to be signed, goes on track, the 1st boat will only be delivered in 2017!!
MeesterT says:

May 23, 2012 at 6:56 pm

Seriously…these are not hot transfer. By the time we get em done, it will be…..2015.
Duit takde bro. Duit ade, PRC and ROK can deliver hulls in 12 months.

Reply
Yea right, PRC and ROK can build the hulls but we have many shipyards to help…
Lee Yoke Meng says:

May 23, 2012 at 8:08 pm

In defence, there is a theory of a layered defence. So for air defence we need a long range, medium range and close in air defence system.So the RMN also need to have a layered defence strategy. We need ships that covers the long range and when the enemy penetrates the long range screen, they will be met by the mid range defence and if they penetrates even this screen, then the close in in shore stuff will need to take care of the enemy.Thus we need a balanced force that consists of both long range ships as much as inshore ships.The inshore ships/boats must also be armed to the teeth too. Like our cambattante and the spica boats. The boats do place an important role in restricted waters like the malacca straits and also the philippine sea.Our ships should be well armed but in addition to quality, quantity is also important as quantity can also take on a quality all its own. This is espeically true where in a combat situation, a number games is important.China build ships/boats or Korean ships/boats are ok for me. Just get enough. Of course, we can dream on as there is no money. So get second hamds?. If we have no choice and its the only choice, lets be practical
genduthijau says:

May 23, 2012 at 11:28 pm

Why go for the stripped down OHP? It is better to go for the Ragam’s, right. Commonality with the Jebat’s. 3 hull somemore. So why nak waste money and time nak upgrade later on. Or maybe somebody up-there still insists in putting the ESSM?
kamal says:

May 24, 2012 at 12:23 am

Why go for the perrys if the recom cost gonna be around USd100 mil to 200 mil each and have a useful life 5-10 years.

Why not the three nakhoda ragam. I dunno how much will it cost now but checking in a nother defence forum rumoured that the three were offered to our neighbour at around total 400 mil pound. Atleast it still have 15 years of life still and maybe take only one year to be fully deployed once decision to purchase and refitting being done
FareedLHS says:

May 24, 2012 at 1:53 am

“Duit ade, PRC and ROK can deliver hulls in 12 months.”

I wouldn’t buy an aircraft carrier from the PRC even if the asking price was 1 cent! When the PRC is the acknowledged belligerent party in the South China Sea, what sense is it to buy from them?!

Secondly, even if brand-new ships were delivered today it would take at least 2-3 years to realize their full potential. Crews must be trained, service and support infrastructure set-up, and so on. Marhalim and Azlan allude to these difficulties in their comments: “The problem started when they failed to recapitalise in the late 80s/early 90s…” and “And once lost, can’t be regained overnight, irrespective of how much money is made available.” It takes time to develop capabilities and unfortunately if time is wasted then once lost capabilities are very hard to regain. Money that should have been spent yesterday, is of no use today. The RMN needs to look ahead and start building for the future. Today’s defence posture is the product of decisions made, and not made, 20-30 years ago.
anon says:

May 24, 2012 at 10:49 am

>I wouldn’t buy an aircraft carrier from the PRC even if the asking price was 1 cent!

Now where is the business sense in you?
I would certainly buy it for 1 cent, or $1, or $10 for that matter. If we later sell as scrap metal, we would earn a tidy profit!

As for the Ragam, does it look like a “US NAVY” ship from a far ?

The ship may be RMN, but with our flag so similar to the US, the proposed RMN’s OHP will look like the 7th fleet to the rescue this!
haha
MeesterT says:

May 24, 2012 at 11:16 am

Plan B is vaporware. We are already running plan B, not working so well

It really is not a tremendous effort to order a somewhat oversized FAC/PC with bare bones fit out and lots of excess topweight provisions and power gen. You roll the hulls out then add in additional modules and bits in refit.

Gaya..is an island off KK, not a naval strategy.

Reply
The hull of the 75mm training ship being built by NGV Tech could be out-fitted a 76mm gun forward, four Harpoon /NSM launchers mid-ship, a Sea-Ram launcher aft plus a towed array and triple torpedo launcher. . If we make enough of this variant together with the MCM and patrol boats (shortened if need be) for MMEA version, the cost of hull will probably be less than RM100 million
HotRed says:

May 24, 2012 at 11:42 am

The issue maybe,is that the navy just wanted numbers, infact any bumboat or tongkang will do,but OHP from US,that is one thing,be it stripped off its armament,but with OHP class presence in laut china selatan that would deter any PRC frgate for awhileuntil they realised that it is only a lame tiger without teeth.Same goes for the pilipinas,they take any ship sold to them,it is mere power projection for short duration hahaha……

Reply
They will know from the start whether it got teeth or not from the US announcement on the sale.
HotRed says:

May 24, 2012 at 12:30 pm

mindef approach towards defence cannot be a wholistic one,it is either to beef up its airforce MRCA (can shoot anti-ship missile)with MPA included or built up a formidable navy.tak bole dapat dua-dua.if land forces to be strengthen maybe start thinking coastal missle defence which can reach up to the max 300km only.
Azlan says:

May 24, 2012 at 7:29 pm

According to Wiki [yes I know, not always reliable!], the USNs remaining Perrys are getting new Caterpillar diesels and some will be fitted with RAM. If that is the case, we might not have to spend too much cash on doing up the Perrys. Off course certain items like new radios and a cipher machine will have to be bought [and new utensils for the galley!]. But all this doesn’t change the fact that the Perrys are 35 years old, have lots of ‘mileage’ on them, will pose manning and logistical issues and a lot will depend on exactly which Perrys are offered to us.

HotRed,

There are 2 types of aircraft in RMAF service that are already fitted with ASMs – the problem is finding the target in the open seas and ensuring we hit what we aimed at. For that, we will need MPAs for OTHT and a better ISR capability. Same goes with the land based ASMs you proposed. As land based ASMs only have a wartime utility the cash woul be better spent on UAVs, and lots of them! At least UAVs have a peacetime utility and are actually useful.

Reply
The Perrys are equipped with twin LM2500 turbines so I believe any engine upgrades will involve new gas turbines and not diesels. The US Navy factfile states that the ships are still equipped with gas turbines

PNS Azmat and the Patrol Boat Conundrum

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