China Made Warships, Coming Soon?

Algerian Navy corvette, Ezzadjer at Boustead Cruise Centre, Port Klang in July, 2016.

SHAH ALAM: I have written in the past that there have been proposals for Malaysia to buy warships from China. The proposals include corvettes and multi-role support ships. And apparently the government is still keen about it though it has not yet wrapped up the deal.

Industry sources told Malaysian Defence that another Made in China proposal was floated recently, this time around a patrol vessel in the guise of the Littoral Mission Ship (LMS) as envisioned by the RMN 15-to-5 transformation plan.

The vessel proposed is to be around 70-metre, slightly smaller than the two training ships designed by DSME.

Under the 15-to-5 plan, the LMS will be the most numerous vessel in the RMN as it will be the cheapest to buy, operate and maintain. It will supplement the LCS and NGPV which will served as the backbone of the future RMN armada together with the submarines and MRSS.

Based on reports, around a dozen or so LMS are supposed to be built together with at least another 12 NGPV, four MRSS and two more Scorpenes.

Algerian Navy Adhafer corvette at berth at BCC in October, last year. Adhafer is the first C28A corvette for Algeria. www.malaysiandefence.com
Algerian Navy Adhafer corvette at berth at BCC in October, last year. Adhafer is the first C28A corvette for Algeria. www.malaysiandefence.com

Malaysian Defence report on the plan in March, this year.

RMN chief Admiral Ahmad Kamarulzaman Baharuddin said the 15-to-5 fleet transformation was part of its plan to strengthen and modernise its armada and be cost effective at the same time.

“If the transformation programme is endorsed by the government the replacement process will be done in stages. We will focus on building ships from the five classes harnessing the abilities of the local industry,”

According to Kamarulzaman, the LMS will be smaller, less capable and more importantly, less expensive than the LCS. It will be multi-mission ship capable of conducting patrols and other duties. Both the LMS and MRSS and the rest of the future armada will be locally built to reduce the procurement and maintenance costs.

Building locally was the main theme of the 15-to-5 plan. That is the reason they wanted more of the NGPV as the design is already owned by Boustead Naval Shipyard so it will be cheaper than DCNS-owned LCS.

Anyhow, as I reported previously, a proposal to buy China made warships – most likely the C28A corvettes ordered by the Algerian Navy, have been in the works in the last five years, which preceded the 15-to-5 plan.

The sources told Malaysian Defence that the plan to buy the two warships in the works for the last two years, was proposed by a group of businessmen from both countries supposedly to promote ties between Malaysia and China.

Senior defence ministry officials when contacted by Malaysian Defence confirmed the plan but declined further comment

The full report here.

Adhafer being assisted to her berth at BCC in October, last year. The rails on top of the bridge are only temporary safety measures. www.malaysiandefence.com
Adhafer being assisted to her berth at BCC in October, last year. The rails on top of the bridge are only temporary safety measures. www.malaysiandefence.com

Apparently the backers of the corvette deal are still at it as I have been told that progress has been made in the negotiations. As it is more mature than the LMS proposal, it is likely that it will get the go-ahead, according to my industry sources. When is the multi-million ringgit question.

The RMN, I am told, preferred the LMS as it fits nicely with its 15-to-5 plan. Whether or not this will be taken into consideration by the government is beyond me. As for the MRSS project, it has been shelved, I was told.

Algerian Navy corvette, Ezzadjer at Boustead Cruise Centre, Port Klang in July, 2016.
Algerian Navy corvette, Ezzadjer at Boustead Cruise Centre, Port Klang in July, 2016.

For the record, three C28A corvettes of the Algerian Navy made stop-overs in Port Klang as they sailed back for home, last year and this year.

With the 2017 Budget set to be announced in October, we will soon find out whether all the talk are real or not. And before I forget, Selamat Hari Raya Aidil Adha!

— Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1163 Articles
Shah Alam

46 Comments

  1. The backers, same team corvette&LMS or 2 separate group? Perhaps a JV of MY-PRC who can roped in the usual EU naval contractors is more “edible to the mainbody”. RMN told us the rough specs for a LMS, hope that this will be followed with RFI to MY shipbuilders. A pity MRSS is not considered.

    Reply
    Different backers

  2. Base on China made pakistan Azmat class fast attack crafts? cost just about $50 million each.
    about 60 meter with 500 tons, suitable to replace all our 40 year old gun boat, FAC. but hopefully get better radar like Thales NS100 or MRR-3D, install Oto melara 40mm navy Gun.
    hopefully project LMS can built up to 24 unit, since we need a lot in Melaka Strait, SCS and Sabah.

  3. I am still in the opinion that we should opt for more capable version of gagah samudera class vessels. It is already as cheap is it can be while still maintaining a military spec built (tho additional armaments, electronic suite ad well as other countermeasures might cost extra)

  4. Marhalim,
    I think the graphic was not issued by TLDM, it’s from an MMP post on March 22.

    Reply
    Thanks, I deleted it. I took the graphic from the TLDM official twitter post. But since the status is doubtful, its best not to use it unlike some other people …

  5. Any info on the type of MRSS we’re planning to procure?

    Reply
    We are not buying one. If you want to know the type, its in my Lima 15 report.

  6. The fit out of the LMS off course is dependent on funding but should also really be based on operational requirements. Given the endurance and range of any vessels of this displacement and it’s limited self- defence capabilities [compared to the Lekius and LCs]; the main wartime role of this class will be sea denial, patrols, escort work, etc, all duties that will avoid this class coming into contact with better armed opponents or at least not for protracted periods. Ideally the class will also have railing for mines. The radar and other gear – whilst important – is secondary; far more important is for the class to be networked with the Lekis, Kasturis and LCS via Link Y or something else. A mini UAS along the likes of Scaneagle would also be useful – the RMN has bought the idea but the question is funding.

  7. Selamat Hari Raya Aidil Adha to Marhalim and all readers.

    this is a good news although i does not prefer made in china ship but we really need ship to cover our maritime. hope to see LMS get green light in the next budget.

    what happend to our MRCA deal Marhalim?it been too quite…..

  8. Chinese built ship? Errrrr do you think its reliable and advance? If the plan go through, i hope the electronic suite, radar system and weaponry are from European company.

  9. 1) getting a Chinese corvette is going to seriously derail the admiral’s 15to5 concept. If you want Chinese stuff, incoperate them in the newbuild NGPV’s as per my article here previously. (do put the article links here as a reference)

    2) LMS. This would need a whole new way of thinking. Able to do things that NGPV and sgpv can’t, and won’t be majoring in things that they do. Must concentrate on combating non-state actor threats (speed boats, swarm tactics, terror tactics), and able to support mine countermeasures as a replacement of specialised MCM ships. Those LMS must also be seamlessly intergated and real time networked with all the coastal radar networks, floating bases, mmea and police. The LMS must replace the
    – FAC(M)
    – FAC (gun)
    – Sandakan patrol squadron
    – Jerai class MCM
    – Fast troop ferrys

    That is about 22 ships in total with wide variety of tasks.

  10. …….,

    There are no immediate plans to replace the Mahamiru class. It’s younger than the FACs and the hull is in much better shape; not so worn out. Also, the class has benefited from upgrades to the extent the FACs haven’t. From what I’ve heard there are no plans to get MCM modules for the LMS – at least not in the near term. On the FTVs, there is no urgency to replace them as they’re relatively new and have a small footprint. Its the FACs and the Laksamanas that are worn out and are costing a bomb to maintain.

    Buying Chinese is not an issue as all the main stuff; from the engines, to the shafts, right down to the radar and ventilation systems won’t be Chinese. Anyhow, the RMN has no intention of buying Chinese sub systems unless it has its arm twisted. Adding Chinese stuff to follow on NGPVs doesn’t make sense as the idea is to have as much commonality as possible. Even if stuff on the follow on NGPVs are different to the ones on the first 6; being Western sourced, they will have some level of commonality; especially when it comes to integrating them to the CMS.

    IDontCare – ”Errrrr do you think its reliable and advance?”

    Gone are the days when Chinese yards churned out hulls that suffered from build quality issues; times have changed.
    Anyhow, the hull will be Chinese but there is no intention of getting Chinese radars, CMS or other gear. Even if we bought some Chinese gear on the assumption – that it’s cheaper to buy; we would still have to fork out funds for integration and whatever cash that’s saved from buying Chinese would be wasted on integration. The idea now to reduce out logistical/support footprint.

    Reply
    Under the 15-to-5 plan, the Mahamiru class will be replaced by the LMS. When is the big question here. There is talk of MCMV modules, but when pressed, the people I talk could not give details so I left it that. My guess RMN has not done enough research on this yet but new hulls really excites every one.

  11. It possible happen go RMN. By referring ur last report

    “In the past, we may want the best platform available to meet our requirements but in reality we cannot afford them. So we are looking at ways to meet the challenges,” he added.

    It either go for China or Korea build product…

    With total 12 ngpv, I think is not an issue to reopen the production..

    We will only get more sgpv when lekiu n kasturi class is eol

    2 more scorpene is just not enough with our country 80% surround by sea

  12. Its a good move toward 15 to 5 concept; more realistic and feasible. But malaysia should only adopt china made for less-strategic asset; the LMS and not any bigger than dat. Since china is also one of the threat on spratly island issue.

  13. The C28A is almost the size of the LCS. Thus, the corvette term is pretty deceiving. If the aim is to replace the FACs then I believe the Type 056 fit the bill, 2 already delivered to Bangladesh.

    A bit of modification, you can add multimission container modules and even the stern RHIB sytem. Weapon, Radar and system should all be western. You can launch UAV and land heli on it.

  14. Just to add … If RMN cannot stop the Chinese purchase might as well try to make the best of it to fit what ever long term strategy that it has

  15. Michael – ”2 more scorpene is just not enough with our country 80% surround by sea”

    Define ”enough”. Based on the size of our national waters and EEZ; even 10 won’t be enough. For that matter even 15 might not be enough! Ideally, we should have 4, not because 4 is enough but with 4 it makes it easier to always have 1 at sea or 1 ready to put to sea.

    Mirsy – ”If the aim is to replace the FACs then I believe the Type 056 fit the bill,”

    Again, what do the operational requirements call for? When the missile armed FACs entered service they were our main combatants; the only ones armed with missiles until the Kasturis arrived. Over time the role of our FACs changed, in line with the introduction of new assets and changing times. Today, all the FACs are used mainly for routine patrolling and other roles [as opposed to their original sea denial role]. The LMS is intended to perform various roles; roles that are more practical than using a Lekiu or an LCS. On paper it should off course be smaller than an LCS or Lekiu, have sensors that may be shorter range and have the flexibility to be able to perform various roles both in times of peace and at war. Just as importantly it will be cheaper to run than a Lekiu or an LCS and will not just replace the FACs.

    Military_Observer – ”Since china is also one of the threat on spratly island issue.”

    We are already China’s largest trading partner in ASEAN, China is close to becoming the largest investor here and bilateral trade is increasing year by year. We can’t base procurement on the fact that China claims areas we claim the Spratlys; this won’t be practical as our economy is already closely tied to China’s.

    Marhalim,

    The problem with MCM modules is that they don’t give a full minehunter and minesweeping capability that a full fledged MCMV does but I guess that’s something the RMN [like others] is willing to live with. Fitting a MCM module to a converted commercial ship is fine but the commercial ship or any other non purpose built MCM ship won’t have a hull built to withstand the shock of a mine detonating nearby and will not have thrusters for precise maneuvering in a mine field. I suspect that the Mahamirus will serve on for quite some time; given that they are not as worn out as the Laksamanas and FACs and as expensive to maintain.

    From what I’ve heard, the RMN managed to sell the LMS idea by pointing out that cash allocated to run the Laksamanas and FACs could be better used on a new, cheaper to run ship. And from what I’ve also heard, as things stand, fitting out the LMS as the RMN wants is an issue due to funding.

    Reply
    Whether or not the LMS could perform mine hunting optimally like a dedicated MCMV is something that RMN has to live with it. It’s their idea in the first place.

  16. Just a thought.

    Maybe what the RMN have in mind about using MCM modules is not directly using the ship as MCM operation platform. They might be using USV with mine hunting & sweeping equipment.

    There are some USV that are almost the same size as a RHIB. So these USV can be carried by a ship like carrying a RHIB. All the system will be controlled inside the main ship far from danger.

    As for the LMS, not sure what kind of design the RMN wants. Maybe they want a helideck but no hangar. Maybe they don’t want a helideck at all. So it might be in the form a corvette or just like a fast attack craft. They might even make do with a scalable and upgraded version of our kedah class.

    And idk what others perceive our lcs, but for me our lcs is a corvette. With the small 57mm gun, VL Mica sam, in terms of capability i called it a corvette.

    But again it has good sonar suite with captas-2 and kingklip sonar(maybe) combination. So in terms of ASW its quite strong. One good thing from using VL mica is the availability of the missile in both heat seeking & radar guidance. Thus increasing interception probability albeit at a very short range.

    From my point of view, having a 76mm gun is better for bombardment. If its truly for littoral combat, you need to support ground troops and 76mm have better range and damage than 57mm. This case is just a random thought from my brain.

    Well lastly, i think it will be better to just invest on the kedah class. Modify and upgrade the design, so our local industry can really work with it. Maybe make it a little bit smaller, to fit into LMS design and mass produce it. Follow the old ngpv plan to have 27 of those.

    Just my sekupang. Anyway selamat hari raya aidiladha guys.

  17. Nihd,

    USVs should be deployed at bases doing surveillance work. I don’t see the value in deploying a USV from a ship when one can use a far more useful [in this context] UAV/UAS. Also, a problem with deploying USVs in open seas is that they don’t perform well in rough seas.

    Whether it’s 76 or 57mm for NGFS there must be people trained to call in fire. In the RMN only PASKAL is trained for this role. The Super Rapid has been used with great success by the IN on land targets in Lebanon.

    Traditionally a ship’s displacement, its speed and role defined whether it was designated a ”corvette”, ”frigate” or ”cruiser”. Nowadays the distinction has become blurred : one man’s ”corvette” can be another man’s ”frigate”; irrespective of the calibre of the main gun and other stuff.

    MCMVs are super expensive because of how their hulls are constructed and various other stuff, e.g. to withstand the shock of an underwater explosion, to have quiet engines, hulls made of stuff that won’t detonate a magnetic mine, etc. The whole idea of having MCM modules is to offer users the flexibility to add on the stuff to any ship and to do away with investing in MCMVs. Sure, adding MCM modules to patrol boat or a corvette gives it some level of MCM capability but it comes at a price or trade off. I suspect Marhalim hit it spot on when he mentioned that the RMN at the moment is still undecided or hasn’t really gone into deciding as to how to proceed with future MCM requirements.

  18. Maybe they can build the hulls in China, and then fit them out here. This is what they did with the Australian LHDs. Hulls built in Spain and the ship finished in Victoria.

    Still not keen about RMN getting combat ships from China even if they are only hulls. Best get a non combatant like LPD, but unfortunately that’s off the table.

  19. If all the major systems are sourced from non Chinese suppliers [which will be case] then final fit out will probably be at the Chinese yard. But will the ships be constructed in China or here? That’s the question. As for hull quality, the issue is not whether a Chinese yard can produce a good hull [it can] but how much the customer is willing to pay in terms of design, steel quality and how stringent the damage control requirements will be. Just because a hull is constructed in a Western yard doesn’t automatically mean it’s superior to one built in China as it depends on what the customer specifies and how much he’s willing to pay.

    The main priority now are ships to replace the worn out and increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain FACs and Laksamanas. No doubt we need a new Multi-Role Support Ship but if we’re faced in the near future with the need to sea lift heavy gear to East Malaysia; a chartered commercial ship can do the job just as well. It’s not as if we’ll be deploying gear to a hostile shore with no proper lifting or docking facilities.

  20. If we buy a Chinese hull but with western systems, how much do we save?

    And how likely is it that China will build the hull, since the plan makes clear that it emphasises local production.

    Nothing done locally is cheap.

    Reply
    The first batch of China made warship will be built in China. On the systems I have yet to get confirmation on whether this will only involve China made systems or Western ones. For the LMS proposal its likely all China made stuff.

  21. A good sample of what LMS can be, LMV of RSN.

    Some navy are working to have USV that can kill surface and subsurface targets, using a manned mothership for control, or highly automated with minimal human control.

    BTW, if the backers have their way,RMN will have major assets from all 5 UNSC veto powers. Good or bad, dunno.

  22. @ azlan

    What nihd meant about the usv is that it is used for minehunting. The trend now in mine countermeasures/minehunting is to increasingly use rov/usv. This is the main reason that dedicated MCMV is now no longer needed.

    As for only getting the hulls made in China; do realise that hulls are one of the least expensive item in a warship. There would not be any meaningful savings if all other systems in the ship is from western sources.

    As for the LMS…

    My 5kupang idea of what it is:
    – Very specific roles. Specialise in things not done by SGPV and NGPV.
    – Optimally operate within malaysia’s coastal radar coverage. To be highly integrated with those radar’s comand and control.
    – No helicopter. No helipad.
    – Radar and eo sensors (preferably 360degree staring style eo sensors) that are tuned for detecting small and fast boats. Rapid fire guns and simultaneous multi target capable short range missiles for defeating swarm-style speedboat attacks.
    – twin ramp style rhib docking at the stern for rapid boarding maneuvers. Also capable of deploying USV for minehunting.
    – Space for 2x teu containers. For MCM, decompression chamber, SAR or other modules.
    – Able to support logistic resupply missions to layang2 or esscom.
    – Able to support hydrographic survey missions.
    – Able to support HADR missions (tsunami, earthquake, floods, airplane crash, capsized ships etc.)

    Can it be done for reasonable cost? I think I have some idea of how it can be done.

  23. Marhalim, any ideas what is coming in the budget?

    Any possibility of an MRCA announcement so the contract can be signed at LIMA 2017?

    Reply
    Still too early on the budget. MRCA still nothing

  24. Hi Marhalim, Do we really know what 70m patrol vessel that is being proposed? Is something similar to the Bangladesh Durjoy LPC.

    Azlan, agreed maybe the Type 056 is OTT for the kind of requirements. But sometime I wonder if we are being really true to ourselves. Are playing to the bean counters hand too much? Can we really expect one platform to do everything – from HADR, MCR, SAR, Logistics, Patrol, 3Ds engagement and the list goes on. We will ended up as \”Jack of all trades but master of none\” Even USN has finally relented that the LCS program as they envision may not \”take off\”. The concept of different mission modules for LCS with flexible crewing is just too much of a stretch. I read that recently and they may turn the LCS to training ships.

    Sometimes I wonder…

  25. @ Mirsy

    You have a good question.

    That is why for LMS you need to really limit its capability, ie don’t expect it to also do ASW, have long endurances as per an OPV, embark a helicopter or do AAW other than for its own self defence. IMO LMS cannot perform all roles from only a single hull type, at least 2 types of Hi-end and Lo-end LMS types with different capability is needed to avoid it being a “jack of all trades but a master of none”.

    As for the modules, MCM could be transformed into an independent, ship agnostic capability similar to what the Danish navy has done.

    OTOH i really need to complete my rant on the LMS soon. So many ideas to be put into writing…

  26. ……..,

    USVs are only useful when the waters are calm or when operating in confined waters where there’s a weak current. Whether or not robotics and USVs can really replace an MCMV with the same minehunting/minesweeping performance remains to be seen. No doubt at some point in the future robotics and USVs will totally do away with the need for an MCMV but I don’t think we are there yet. There is a reason why some navies are still investing in newly built MCMVs and why practically all are still retaining the ones they have.

    Not only will the hull be made in China but a lot of the internal work, i.e. the ventilation system, the thousands of miles of wiring, fitting out of the living spaces, fitting of the distilling system, etc, etc, – not just the construction of the hull. The hull may be ”cheap” but it also depends on the type of steel specifies, the tolerances of the hull, etc, etc, all this and the various internal work is what adds up to the final figure; not just the payment for the various systems sourced from non Chinese suppliers. The hull is cheap but not the work that goes into fitting the hull out.

    On modules there is a plus and minus factor and why some navies haven’t gone down this route. A ship fitted out with a MCM module is good for MCM but if there’s a need for this particular ship to be tasked for ASW; it won’t be possible as it will have to head home to be reconfigured. All fine if there are other ships in the area that can perform the role but if there isn’t then obviously this is a problem.
    Even the Danes with StanFlex very rarely changed the mission modules. Personally I think modules are the way to go as they offer great flexibility and cost savings but they are not an answer to everything.

    On the final fit out of the LMS, the RMN has gave it great thought based on present and future requirements and based on various limitations we currently face with the assets we have. The problem is whether enough cash will be allocated for the RMN to do what it wants to do and whether the government has the will to adequately follow this through.Thus for me the issue is not the RMN not coming out with the right ideas but whether it will get the desired capability.

    Mirsy,

    The best we can hope for is a compromise. Unless things get to the point where our security is under direct threat; the 3 armed services will never get all they need and have to provide justification to why they want to but this or that. The main problem is that we have too many different ships in service and some are in urgent need for retirement [urgent in the sense that they won’t sink due to old age but are increasingly expensive to run] : the LMS is intended to rectify this to some extent.

    Nimitz – ”RMN will have major assets from all 5 UNSC veto powers.”

    Nothing from Russia apart from the AK101s. In the mid-1990s the Assistant Defence Attache at the Russian embassy told me that we were interested in underwater dart guns for PASKAL; unsure if we actually bought any.

  27. Another 12 ngpv.armed with missile or not marhalim.if yes then imo we can say good bye to the lms,svorpene,mrss,asw helivopter,mpa and others .arming the existing one would be good enough for detterence .buying 12 new one wwould put a big hole in our small budget.

    Reply
    They just said 12 more NGPVs nothing specific on weapons

  28. If we look at the rmn budget there is nothing much left after the gowind.the best we can hope is some basic mpa.other than that imo is not realistic.even now the guys at yhe mof are under intense pressure to keep yhe defecit at 3.1 according to my source.

  29. @ ujang

    All of this talk of new stuff could only be realistically done post 2020, in 2021-25 timeframe.

    If the navy in that timeframe could get a similar budget to the to the 2016-2020 budget (which is now spent on the new SGPV and scorpene refit) that is say usd3.5 to 4bil, what can be done with that budget?

    Probably:
    – 1 more scorpene (0.7bil). Probably can be assembled in the current refit building from sections made in France, India and Brazil.
    – 6 more new NGPV + weapons for the 6 current NGPV (1.5bil)
    – 20-24 LMS + MCM modules (1.5bil)
    – Secondhand asw helicopters (0.3bil)

  30. Budget deficit can actually be lower even if some current projects still continue. I mean why the heck build a mrt cost 56 billion when a less pomp system(and existing) is around rm30 billion for same distance. No wonder those level 4 boys botak kepala

    Again its boil down to those bloody national interest lobbyist

  31. Because Paskal is lavished with so many exotic firearms that are acquired in small numbers each but seldom operationally deployed.

  32. A lot of the ”exotic” arms were either provided by OEMs via local agents or were bought for trials. Most of the time, after spares have run out or after they were found not suitable; they end stored in the armoury or in the PASKAL museum [in the 1990’s Petronas provided funding for a batch of Brit made submersibles; after spares ran out they ended up stored – not a bad thing as hey weren’t very useful]. It is not unheard off for units like PASKAL to acquire or be given small batches of arms for trials and thus have several makes which are not deployed operationally. Which begs the question : did Gerak Khas ever have AT-4s or was the one displayed many years ago just one of a few acquired or given for evaluation? Marhalim has seen PASKAL with Valmets.

    Approval for 6 ASW newly built ASW configured helos have already been obtained – that’s one major hurdle overcomed. The next is to wait for funding to be allocated – the budget can come from somewhere apart from the allocated procurement budget.

  33. While there’s a saying “steel is cheap and air is free”, IMOlity wise IMO it’s down to what we are willing to pay. The PLA of today (especially the Navy) is very different from that of the 70’s and 80’s.
    At the rate they’re building new and modern ships, IMHO they’ll be the “numero uno” navy bar none.

  34. AM,

    All special forces units have more leeway in being able to evaluate and acquire stuff specific to their needs. Quite often the unit won’t ask for something but will be provided with a batch by the OEM for evaluation.

    zainal,

    In hardware maybe but wars now have changed to the extent that hardware often doesn’t make the difference. When it comes to network integration, having a common picture, coordinating operations with other services, etc, PLAN is still way behind the USN. It is also way behind when it comes to operating far from its shores with a fleet train, coordinating task forces at sea, etc, stuff the USN has been doing for decades.

    All this talk about a rising China and PLAN reminds me of the era prior to WW1. The Brits were very concerned about Germany building a fleet that could reach parity with the RN or threaten the RN’s dominance of the world’s oceans; in the end the RN contributed to Germany’s defeat and apart from a 1 huge single sortie to do battle [Jutland] and numerous engagements that didn’t determine the actual outcome; the Kaiserliche Marine spent most of the war at its bases, a fleet in being that was totally outfought by the RN and the unwillingness of the Kaiser to lose his fleet. Slightly different scenario to the present but there are similarities to the present with regards to the rise of PLAN.

  35. I can’t think of another country that on national day parades equipment samples that are either in evaluation, or have already been evaluated and not selected.

    Closest thing would be Russia parading its Armatas (or in the Cold War, ICBMs) but those are their own developmental products.

    Here, it’s like going to the museum and parading an exhibit that has never been in service and never will.

    Reply
    Better than carrying weapons that need to be used operationally.

  36. AM,

    STRIDE paraded something that hadn’t even completed development and might never. Remember that particular piece of kit that we were told was ”rahsia”?

    On the subject of PASKAL they parade weapons that they actually use; irrespective of whether those weapons are not used in large numbers, were acquired or were given for evaluation or are not standard issue. Nothing wrong with that. There are pics of G-36s used in Ops Fajar, it’s not standard issue or available in large numbers but still an operational weapon.

  37. Yes, the XK98 Taming Sari. What became of the projectile and the laser designator that they paraded?

    Reply
    I believe the project has been cancelled

  38. Supposedly, it’s a Krasnapol clone involving a North Korean and Chinese company – no wonder why we wouldn’t want to talk about it. As for its utility I can think of other key areas that the Royal Artillery Corps should focus on; rather than a guided round.

    STRIDE was also working on a lightweight 120mm mortar and had bought a couple of 120m mortars from Slovakia.

  39. The purchase of China made warship is more to the political issue and economy issue not the strategic purchase. We know the present situation at South China sea. The China aggressively claim almost the South China sea is belong to them and it is self proclaimed. It is not logic to face China with made in China ship when if there is serious conflict happen IF HAPPEN. CHINA taken serious efforts to promote their product and now the marketing level came to military hardware. It is make sense the proposal from the both countries business man. What the important things in the business man mind? Only money and profit. So if any purchase from China shall be consider not to buy the strategic asset, we must prefer the product from different country’s and the priority of the procurement must go to the real capability of the hardware not the view from business man. The purchase from China shall put secondary option. Understood the present economy conditions won’t allowed us to purchase high profile hardware, but it is ok rather we don’t have at all. The falling of RM value make us limited choice at present.

  40. @ algojo

    This chinese buy is pushed by the PM himself. There is no private middlemen/businessman involved except for the LTAT controlled Boustead Naval Shipyard.

    BTW can you yourself personally refrain from buying anything made in china in your daily life? If you can successfully do that personally by all means suggest the same to the government. Is it okay for you not to use any handphones at all rather than buy one that made in china (iphone, samsung, oppo, sony etc are all made in china. Is there any handphones not made in china at all)?

  41. Algogo,

    No ……………

    If the Iranians could use U.S. made aircraft against the U.S, the Argentine’s used British made equipment against the British and the Chechens used Russian made equipment against the Russians; so why can’t a user of Chinese equipment use Chinese equipment against the Chinese [just to give a few examples]? Even assuming the radar, CMS and FCS on the LMS is Chinese sourced; it is the RMN which uploads its own codes and selects the frequencies. It is incorrect and illogical to assume that just because the LMS is Chinese sourced, that it can’t be used against the Chinese.

  42. We don’t know if manufacturers have ever included features help defeat their own munitions.

    I believe it’s possible. Just because we don’t know doesn’t mean it cannot be done or hasn’t been done. If there are suppliers who have done it, they aren’t exactly going to shout about it.

  43. What certain countries tend to do is offer downgraded electronics but we’re talking about stuff like radar, EW, missile seekers, etc. With the LMS; stuff like the CMS and FCS are not ”sensitive” items per say and all the codes are loaded by the end user. If we bought high end long range missiles, armed long range UAS or similar stuff from China which hasn’t been widely exported then yes, there is a possibility it may be downgraded. Anything is possible but the question is really what is practical and really needed to do and what isn’t.

    Any Chinese gear that goes on the LMS will be pretty basic or at least not cutting edge technology – there is no likelihood that these systems might compromise the Chinese in any way. The Chinese have been trying to sell us stuff so so long; they know that if they sell us stuff that is downgraded to the extent that it’s not very useful; this will backfire as we’ll look elsewhere the next time around.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.