Joy To The World

An earlier CGI of the LMS. TLDM picture

SHAH ALAM: Joy to the world! As the Bangladesh Navy had named its first China-made Large Patrol Craft as BNS Durjoy, I used part of the word as the title of this post as it sounds nice and an obvious hint what this post is all about.

Yes, the four Littoral Mission Ship (LMS) the RMN is getting is a variant of the Durjoy class. It should be longer at 68 metres or so, about 4 metres longer than the Durjoy class, two of which are in service with Bangladesh Navy since 2013. The two ships are BNS Durjoy and BNS Nirmul.

A screenshot of tweet by RMN chief which showed a CGI of the LMS.
A screenshot of tweet by RMN chief which showed a CGI of the LMS.

The Wikipedia page on the Durjoy class claimed that the ship was a scaled down version of the Type 056A corvette.

BNS Durjoy
BNS Durjoy

The LMS/Durjoy is the product of Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Group Co.,Ltd , an affiliate of China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation.

One of the Durjoy class LPC shortly after its launching at Wuchang Shipyard in Wuhan.
One of the Durjoy class LPC shortly after its launching at Wuchang Shipyard in Wuhan.

When the contract for the LMS goes ahead on Nov.5, it will become the most significant arms deal between Malaysia and China. The Army operated the FN-6 Manpads which were ordered in 2004, a follow-up deal to buy KS-1 MR SAMs never materialised.

From Wikipedia.

These ships are of 64.2 metres (211 ft) long, 9 metres (30 ft) wide and have a 4 metres (13 ft) draught with a displacement of 648 tonnes. The ships have a Bulbous bow suggests these ships are designed to sustain heavy sea states. The ships have speed and range to support long missions. The LPCs are powered by triple Pielstick diesels driving three screws for a top speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph). The range of the ships is 2,500 nautical miles (4,600 km; 2,900 mi) at and endurance is 15 days. They have a compliment of 60 crews. According to CSIC officials speaking to Defense Media Network at LIMA 2013, these are cost-effective warships, able to perform strike missions at ranges of about 2,500 nmi (4,600 km; 2,900 mi) as well as undertaking limited anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations.

Two Durjoy-class ships are under constitution at KSY for dedicated ASW operations which will have torpedo launchers besides other armaments.

Confirming the deal, RMN chief Adm. Kamarulzaman Badaruddin said that the ships will be fitted with MTU diesel engines. He also confirmed that the LMS will only be fitted with guns only. It will be wired for missiles but under the Fitted For But Not With, just like the Kedah class, anti-ship missiles will not be fitted (more likely not procured – ED).

The missile box on board one of the Durjoy class LPC. The Durjoy class boats are fitted with four C-704 anti-ship missiles.
The missile box on board one of the Durjoy class LPC. The Durjoy class boats are fitted with four C-704 anti-ship missiles.

With no missile launchers fitted at the aft deck, opens the possibility that the space could be fitted with all sort mission equipment as envisaged for the LMS.

Kamarulzaman, when met at the launch of the National Special Operations Force on Oct .28, also confirmed that two of the ships will be built in China (at the Wuchang Shipyard, Wuhan) while the other pair will be built by Boustead Naval Shipyard. Its likely as the Lumut shipyard will be very busy with the LCS, BNS may well build them at its other shipyard at Pulau Jerejak in Penang.

A model of the C802A SSM on display at DSA 2016. The missile has been exported to Pakistan, Bangladesh and Algeria. Note the graphic of the family of missiles in the back.
A model of the C802A SSM on display at DSA 2016. The missile has been exported to Pakistan, Bangladesh and Algeria. Note the graphic of the family of missiles in the back.

The TOT is the same deal that Bangladesh bought into as they got two of their boats directly from China while the other two are being built in Bangladesh. The Durjoy class are armed with a 76mm gun forward and two 20mm Oerlikon guns aft and four C-704 anti-ship missiles aft.

The front end of the Bangladesh Navy LPC with the 76mm gun.
The front end of the Bangladesh Navy LPC with the 76mm gun.

As for the equipment, Kamarulzaman said it will be a mixture of China and Western equipment. He did not specify them but said it will be cheaper if we opted for China made equipment only. As for the western equipment, he says it will be the same ones already in service with RMN.

A CGI of the LMS. TLDM picture
A CGI of the LMS. TLDM picture

Cost was the main reason that Malaysia are buying from China, says Kamarulzaman. With RMN getting some RM1 billion this year – most of the funds are locked into the LCS program – this is elementary though with any defence deal, the politicians will have the final say.

He also hinted of another proposal from China as a stop-gap measure ahead of the arrival of the four patrol boats.

He declined to reveal more saying that negotiations were still on-going but if it was successful the service could opt to retire all its aged patrol vessels at the same time. Whether or not this will affect the planned 18 LMS for RMN is beyond me at the moment.

For a different take on the LMS, read …excellent piece here. And no, I am not going to Beijing for the signing ceremony. In fact, by the time you read this post, I will be in Jakarta earning my keep!

Posted below are the general characteristics of the Durjoy class. It will be more or less the same as the LMS. It could be longer by four metres as mentioned previously.

From Wikipedia

Durjoy class general characteristics
Type: Large patrol craft
Displacement: 648 tons
Length: 64.2 m (211 ft) (overall)
Beam: 9 m (30 ft)
Draught: 4 m (13 ft)
Propulsion: 2 shafts, 2 diesels
Speed: 28 knots (52 km/h)
Range: 2,500 nmi (4,600 km; 2,900 mi)
Endurance: 15 days
Complement: 60 personnel
Sensors and
processing systems:

Type 360 Radar (SR60) Surface Search, E/F band
MR-123-02/76 Fire Control Radar for 76.2mm gun
Type 352 Radar (Square Tie) surface search and SSM fire control, I-band
Type 347G Radar (Rice Bowl) for 20mm cannon, I-band
ESS-3 bow mounted sonar

Armament:

1 × H/PJ-26 76.2 mm naval gun, forward;
2 × 2 C-704 AShM;
2 × Oerlikon 20 mm cannon;
2 × 6-tube EDS-25A 250mm ASW rocket launcher
Decoys

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1163 Articles
Shah Alam

45 Comments

  1. Emm… where do i start?

    The Durjoy class on paper spacification is lower than even our old Handalan class (Spica-M) FAC(G), not to mention the Laksamana’s. It is basically designed as a patrol boat (low 28knots top speed), with armaments (guns and missiles)similar to traditional FAC’s.

    I was really hoping that the LMS would be a benchmark in modern litttoral vessels, designed to deal more with the non-state actors in fast small boats rather than the normal patrol boat shooting missiles at bigger naval ships.

    Lets see the actual LMS specification, graphics and models. Hopefully it is significantly different than the Durjoy class LPC of Bangladesh Navy.

  2. With budget MYR200Million/ship plus unfavorable USD/MYR rate, LMS IMHO from the outside maybe not that far off from Durjoy.

  3. Here we go again. National interest game at its best. What if the RMN suddenly finds (god forbid) that the joy class is not suitable with their 15 to 5 plan? Will they introduce a new design and rename their program to the 16 to 5 plan? Why is it that the gagah samudera class no listed in this grand plan? It is well below the 50 mil usd ceiling price of the LMS.

  4. Since first Durjoy class was design in 2009/2010,
    our RMN enhancement spec in 2016, with Engine change to MTU engine, hopefully the propulsion will redesign and upgrade too.
    best ideally change to 2 MTU Engine with 2 shaft and CPP. so operation & maintenance will be more easy.

  5. Looking at the LMS68 computer graphics, it is basically a patrol ship with H/PJ-26 76mm gun only, Electronics, looks like old pre-aesa Saab Sea Giraffe radar (is that still being built, or a chinese copy?), and optronic gun directors. Very basic, no groundbreaking situational awareness systems installed (like the Thales Gatekeeper). A conventional bridge and mast. No RHIB for boarding operations. No stern ramp for rapid deployment of RHIB. A very tight empty space behind the superstructure to put 20TEU containers. No cranes for self-loading of containers or other stuff. Doubtful usefulness in any HADR scenarios.

    Basically just a smaller version of the guns-only Kedah class OPV. To build 18 ships all to one common standard with limited budgets, this is what you get.

    I am really hopeful the ship will be substantially redesigned (just like the current version of the gowind SGPV is way different from the first concepts of the ship), rather than being just an elongated version of the Durjoy patrol ship.

  6. Can it be fitted with bofor guns instead? or Chinese variant? It will be logistic headache if new Chinese variant guns installed instead.

    Reply
    I believe it could be fitted with Western guns but it’s unlikely

  7. Yes… Just like I predicted in my previous post, marhalim

    After looking at what CSOC had on offer there was only 2 candidates Durjoy and Azmat. But since Patrol is the first priority for the ships then it has to be Durjoy … It has enough space astern for the modular containers.

  8. It bears a strong resemblance to the Korean PKG-A in dimensions, appearance and role.

    For RM200 million we could have afforded the missile armed variant of the PKG-A, which is faster at 40 knots and requires a crew of 40. Durjoy is 28 knots and requires a crew of 60. Not to mention the benefits of having western equipment.

    So if we are paying RM200 million for a Durjoy without missiles, I would say there are no cost savings.

    Original post “Cost was the main reason that Malaysia are buying from China, says Kamarulzaman.”

    Considering this buy could not have been negotiated overnight, I believe this was negotiated when China bought 1MDB’s assets.

  9. The performance of these 4 ships will determine if the design is worthy enough for the remaining 14 ships

    On unrelated development, BNS is teaming up with indonesian company for the navy’s MPSS programme (based on NlMakassar-class LPD)

    Personally, I’d rather if RMN get china-made LPD than that militarized ferry

    Reply
    Its just an MOU. I have not covered MOU since 1997

  10. Well, I think the 76 and 40 guns are to be stripped from the Laksamana’s to arm these LMS. Other electronics,I don’t know.
    What say you?

  11. It’s just too small and too lightly armed. The benchmark for the RMN LMS program was the Gowind 1000 Class. The vessel was capable of conducting asw, air defense and HADR, minesweeping, mine laying and littoral patrol. It was designed with a helipad and hangar for Rotary Wing recovery. If mindef wants this design, it’s fine but they seriously need to Super-sized it so it can fit it’s requirement. As for armament, the sole purpose of the 15 to 5 program was efficiency, uniformity and cost effectiveness. Imagine how cost effective it would be when the entire Malaysian Navy is equipped with NATO armaments while 18 of Malaysia most numerous ship is armed with Chinese gear. Think of the logistical nightmare

  12. On the MRSS MOU

    PT PAL even went to the length of building a scale model of the MRSS for the MOU. The PT PAL concept for the MRSS would be a substantially extended and enlarged version of the SSV built for the Philippines. The MRSS would be 150+m in length (SSV 123m) and 26m in width (SSV 23.8m).

    Politics aside, this would be a great ship for TLDM’s MRSS requirements. Very close to what I imagined for the MRSS, although I do hope there would be a logistics and replenishment support version of the ship too.

  13. “The benchmark for the RMN LMS program was the Gowind 1000 Class.”

    How did you know that?

    “Imagine how cost effective it would be when the entire Malaysian Navy is equipped with NATO armaments while 18 of Malaysia most numerous ship is armed with Chinese gear. ”

    Indeed, now the best we can hope for is minimal Chinese content in the ships. It is hard to believe this LMS purchase and the rash of other Chinese deals this week are unconnected.

    That said, weapons are increasingly high tech and costly. Until we restructure the economy so we can raise the defence budget, we will increasingly be forced to buy Russian and Chinese gear which caters to cheaper markets, but does not cost less to operate in the long run. This is not a matter of raising tax and raiding other budgets, which cannot be done indefinitely.

  14. zainal,

    What electronics can one recycle from the Laksamanas to the LMS? Most are obsolescent, being from the 1980’s.

    Muhammad Mu’az Bin Azman,

    Was the benchmark really the Gowind 1000? This is news to me.
    Indeed there is a need for commonality; to not increase the logistical footprint. Increasing the footprint defeats the whole purpose of the 5/15. It helps however that the engines will be MTU and I suspect most of the other main items will also be Western. As for it being too small and lightly armed; no. The size/displacement is adequate for the roles it’s expected to perform. It’s not as if the LMS is expected to be operating far away from our shores for protracted periods. As for it being lightly armed the bright side is that there is sufficient deck space to mounts missiles and mission modules.

    ………. – ” I believe this was negotiated when China bought 1MDB’s assets.”

    Given that the bulk of the funds is from cash intended for the maintenance and upgrades of old ships and from surplus operating funds; it was given that we would order Chinese. Talks actually started more than a couple of years ago, involving different players. Just like how talks to equip GAPU with a medium range missile have been going on for years [after the KS-1 deal was shelved].

  15. Am

    Ive posted a similar question. Why cant we just buy the pkg @ gumdoksuri class with the same budget instead of this toothless patrol vessel? Does the RMN realy wants the Durjoy class or is it being pushed down their throat by some fancy politician?

    Reply
    AFAIK there was no offer from South Korea and DSME backed the wrong people

  16. Surprising it takes 2 years to deliver the 1st ship. I thought it would be much shorter …… Believe this is not as straight as the Durjoy. Being multi-mission based on modules concept, i am sure that the LMS 68 need to be developed to accomodate and cater the needs of the different mission modules.

    Thus the design fit what RMN, this can never be compare with LMV, but as rightly said they are operating in the nation littoral water thus can rely on home support,

    What is more interesting is the comment “stop-gap” to allow the Laksmana to retire together at one go. Only mean that China will be leasing us ships – FOC certainly. With Type 056 in large numbers already that means that the Type 037 will be readily available… Interesting

  17. “AFAIK there was no offer from South Korea and DSME backed the wrong people”

    That tends to happen when you make many requests but never get round to buying. People won’t take you seriously.

    Picking an agent because you like or dislike him only makes it worse.

    These acquisition practices are short changing the users and all of us.

  18. 50m for these ship is kinda hard 2 swallow

    Reply
    $50 million was the target per ship. Whether its cheaper or that is how much each is unknown at the moment. And don’t forget we have to pay for the right to build them here

  19. The press release from Terma last month suggest the new MPCSS/MRSS has been or will be signed in the near future.

    “The RMN has also selected the SCANTER 6000 for its two new Multi-Purpose Common Support Ships (MPCSS). “It is a similar installation to the frigates with the ARPA display and radar”, Tolstrup said. ”

    Reply
    Apparently you are late to the party, read my previous posts on the nav radars

  20. Marhalim

    Why wait for an offer? Cant we just tell the Koreans that we are interested in their ships? Again. Its affordable, more capable and most importantly the class is in service with the ROKN. Looking back to Admiral Kamarulzaman comments, the joy class looks like an attempt to find out wether the desgn is suitable with our requirements or not. Hence the 4 ship oder. What if the joy class turn out to be a bust? Im not being a profit of doom or something but really now? Chinese made ship after the luconia shoal incident?

  21. shed – ”Why cant we just buy the pkg @ gumdoksuri class with the same budget instead of this toothless patrol vessel? ”

    Why didn’t we buy Super Hornets instead of MKMs? Why did the RMN want Kockums subs but received Lekius instead? Why did we get PT-91s when the Armour Directorate preferred T-84s? Politics and national interests. Just like how selling military gear is part and parcel of one’s foreign policy; so is buying military gear : not just here but everywhere. And why conclude that it will be ”toothless” when we have zero idea how it will be eventually fitted out?

    Mirsy – ”Surprising it takes 2 years to deliver the 1st ship. I thought it would be much shorter ……”

    From the time it takes to lay a keel, to launching a ship, to handing it over to the end user; very few yards can do it under 2 year. PLAN has corvettes that are being launched a a rate of every 6 weeks but that is an exceptional case.

  22. Surprisingly, I think the decision to go with durjoy type patrol craft is pretty sensible considering the very limited budget although the notion that it will have a combination of Chinese and Western equipment is slightly worrying. I don’t think the navy would opt for Chinese sensor suite and FCS if they have a say on that, so the Chinese equipment would probably be the main gun and the FFBNW missile. I’m not sure how much would those contribute to its logistical footprint, but budget wise it made sense in keeping the acquisition cost low. I have to agree …, a 360 degree EO sensor such as Thales Gatekeeper or STELOP would be a welcomed addition to the LMS. Maybe for a SLEP once the economy is more permissible.

    I’m not so sure about the Gumdoksuri being a better choice, as the class was developed for a much different role than what the LMS was slated for. And the proclaimed 40kt max speed could only be achieved by the 200t B variant, the larger A variant barely reached 28kt. The reason for this might be traced to the ship’s hull design as the desire to keep a desirable beam-to-draft ratio for better seakeeping failed to account for the 40kt speed requirement. Even if all the kinks were straightened out in regards to the hull design and propulsion system, would the ship be able to reach 40kt with a 4x CODAD propeller driven configuration instead of the original 2×2 CODAG with jet propulsion? Doubtful.

  23. Mu’az ….. Gowind 1000 is about 1500 tons, same to Kedah Class category. if future 2nd phase NGPV, Gowind 1000 can join tender. and price Gowind 1000 is at around usd 250+- million depend weapon system.

    AM ….. Korean PKG-A is design as FAC or Intercept patrol craft mainly to protect North Korea FAC. (design/Size same to Azmat class) so it not really design long patrol use, PKG-A design come with 2 Gas turbine engine + 2 diesel + 2 water jet propulsion for high speed design, but at same time fuel efficiency will 2x-3x more than diesel engine + propeller patrol boat in patrol speed. and also RMN don’t want Gas turbine engine.also Korean PKG-A price is 10 year ago and national price, also RMN no have much budget use to burn diesel, more importance is LMS should include 2 RHIB at rear.

  24. Everyone is getting their knickers in a knot, even the foreign press talking about Malaysia swaying away from the US.

    For God’s sake, these are just patrol boats armed with guns only. The main combat ships are the LCS +2, supported by Kedah +2 [once they are updated]. These ships do not need missiles, and by the way they have to be replaced every 30 years.

  25. No smoke stack? I thought RMN prefer ships with smoke stack.

    A change in design would incurr cost right?

  26. Everything depends on the final design and how all 4 are fitted out. Until then, it’s all speculation. I’ve said this before many times and will say it again : the biggest worry is the RMN not getting the desired capability due to cash factors. At the moment it’s still early days. Comparing the Chinese design to other available designs [that could have been but were not selected] is not very helpful as there are varying factors involved.

    There is nothing to suggest that the Gumdoksuri would be a better design or could have been bought for less as the final price depends on various factors. For the type of roles the LMS is intended to do; the selected design is sufficient, it is not too small as some have suggested and even if the initial 4 are not armed with missiles; this is something we can live with : the LMS is intended to perform specific roles [roles that don’t require a LCS or Lekiu] and is not expected to participate in a 21st century version of Jutland fought off the Chinese coast.

    The fact remains that the selected design [despite whatever shortcoming it has – no design is perfect] will offer better seakeeping, endurance and range over the FACs and Laksamanas it is intended to replace. Sure the FACs are faster but this is expected given the role they were originally designed for. The low freeboard of FACs can and do affect sensor performance as does vibration when moving at high speeds [which they hardly do to conserve fuel and avoid wear and tear on old engines]. On paper the Laksamana class is way ahead as it has surface, sub-surface and air capabilities [which the initial 4 LMS will not have] but this only great when all worked as advertised and the fact remains that in RMN service the class hardly worked as advertised. Another vital factor is that the LMS will be a much lesser drain on resources than the worn out and expensive to maintain FACs and Laksamanas.

  27. Azlan,

    “Before being a premature prophet of doom lets wait for all the full facts to appear. Some navies have bought Chinese and haven’t complained; yet some navies have bought Western and have had cause to complain. How the ship turn out will really depend not on the fact that it’s built in China but how much we’re willing to spend and what we specify …..”

    Guess theres a first time for everything. Never been called a premature prophet of doom before.
    Been always good with my timing and always optimistic.

    From manufacturing industry and now quality management.
    Basically means know yr stuff and fix problems.

    We have been dealing with the China myth on quality and originality since the 80s. Still today in 2016.

    Quality , reliability and maintainence issues exist with every supplier from every country. China ranks the lowest among the potential countries that can provide us with what we want.

    Just becos some export customers have not yet complained publicly abt china defence equipment , does not mean issues do not exist.

    If Spore bought china defence equipment then I wud b impressed.
    Spore ranks miles better than china in every category.

    Everyone knows defence purchases are not just wat the military wud like to have but finance , politics play a great part.

    I have other reasons but takes a long time to type in this box.

    I believe this move is a mistake and the navy will regret it . Not the politicans.

  28. Dave – ”We have been dealing with the China myth on quality and originality since the 80s. Still today in 2016.”

    Yes but 90 percent of it is based on assumptions, wrong information and prejudice; instead of hard facts. There are Western yards which have produced ships [far longer than Chinese yards] with quality issues : doesn’t mean these Western yards produce sub standard ships and subs.

    Dave – ”Just becos some export customers have not yet complained publicly abt china defence equipment , does not mean issues do not exist.’

    Who says there haven’t been public complains? At the same time there have been complains about stuff delivered by Western companies. Just because certain Chinese made stuff had issues or had unsatisfied customers doesn’t provide a true indication. Up to the 1990’s, South Korean yards didn’t have a solid reputation yet look at them today. Just because Chinese products come with the ”cheap” stigma and Chinese ships in the 1980’s let a lot to be desired; doesn’t mean that’s still the case now. Disagree or not but the days when Chinese yards built ships like the Jianghus are long over. Ask the Thais and they’ll tell you there’s a world of difference in build quality between the Jianghus and the Pattanis and Naresuan.

    Dave – ”China ranks the lowest among the potential countries that can provide us with what we want.”

    The fact remains that there are customers who are quite happy with the level of support provided by the Chinese. In the case of the LMS; most of the major components will be Western sourced and I could provide you with examples of major Western companies also not delivering to full satisfaction. BAE Systems and other Western companies [who some assume always deliver as promised] have their share of cockups. Everyone does; not just the Chinese. Ask the Australians about their experience with BAE Systems [Australia]; ask the Greeks about their issues with HDW. For that matter, ask the MAF about how certain Western companies didn’t deliver on time and on spec ….

    Dave – ”I believe this move is a mistake and the navy will regret it. ”

    If you actually have any information to back up your hunch; all of us would be interested. If you’re worried about build issues; it’s what the customer specifies and how much he’s willing to pay; that is the inhibiting factor, not the inability of a Chinese yard to build a sound ship.

    Dave – ”If Spore bought china defence equipment then I wud b impressed.”

    So based on your line of reasoning if Singapore doesn’t buy a particular piece of equipment; you wouldn’t be impressed? Singapore has bought Iglas but some other countries eliminated Igla during evaluations; so what does this mean?

  29. Dear Old Chap,

    We, meaning those involved in manufacturing since the 80s when I was a wee lad engineer till today 2016 have been dealing with the said myth.

    Chinas quality, reliability , originality and maintence , spares and such has improved but slower than korea or japan before.

    Spore is an example of quality. Their standards dwarf chinas.

    So in saying that if a country like spore wud choose chinas ships, yes then I wud be impressed.

    Cos that means due diligence and trust .

  30. “Spore ranks miles better than china in every category”
    Really, every category?? It’s hard to take one seriously when they make such sweeping statement.

    “Spore is an example of quality. Their standards dwarf chinas.”
    What standards are you talking about that dwarfs China’s? Yes, Singapore has a different set of requirements for its military equipment due to its unique operational requirements and military doctrines, not to mention the amount of capital in their disposal. That does not mean that what they chose is of the highest possible quality and those rejected did not meet Singapore high ‘standards’ thus should never considered for acquisition.

    “Cos that means due diligence and trust”
    Oh yes, the SAR-21 is a prime example of due diligence and trust and Singapore’s penchant for Israeli equipment is not driven by politics at all, they’re simply the best choice out there based on stringent ‘due diligence and trust’.

    Are there better options for the LMS? Of course they are but, can we afford it. Is this contract somehow politically driven? most probably yes but what military acquisition is 100% free of political influence. Why do you think the 7.62 became NATO standard when the Brits were pushing the idea of an intermediate cartridge with the .280 British? And when the US developed their own intermediate cartridge, the ever popular 5.56 NATO, which again became NATO standards backtracking their assertion that a bigger cartridge is the better choice. Oh no, it’s not political at all, no sir..

  31. Tv3 2000hrs news Nov4 shown a greatly different pic of LMS compared to what we have here. LMS shown on TV has a smokestack, RHIB boat on davits positioned below smokestack, helideck aft. Superstructure looks like Kedah’s.

  32. Johari

    Yes, but LMS ain’t gonna tangle with the big ships and head to head with heavily armed vessels. LMS was meant to provide patrols along the littorals and engage HADR ops. Hence that is why is a guns shi[ only but you missed the mission module part. Th emain surface combatant is the Kedah’s and the SGPV.

  33. Dave – ”We, meaning those involved in manufacturing since the 80s when I was a wee lad engineer till today 2016 have been dealing with the said myth.”

    Myths is one thing; reality another. Just like South Korea; China has come a long way. Again : the inhibiting factor is not the inability of a Chinese yard to produce a sound ship but what the end user specifies and is willing to pay …..

    Dave – ”Spore is an example of quality. Their standards dwarf chinas.”

    Great, I’m gratified but that has zero relevance to the subject. Again, if you have any hard facts to back your hunch that the RMN will ”regret” getting the Chinese built LMS or that Chinese built ships – even if built to stringent requirements as specified by the end user – still have quality issues; please do share it here for the benefit of the rest of us.

    I stand by what I say : all these objections to buying Chinese are driven by hearsay, the quality of Chinese gear in the 1980’s [the experience the Thais had with their Jianghus being a prime example], myths, prejudice and speculation; rather than hard facts. Yes, I’d rather have the LMS built in france or South Korea but that’s be displaying my prejudice; I fully admit that because at the end of the day; it depends on what the customer specifies and is willing to pay …… Not on where the ship is built.

    Dave – ”So in saying that if a country like spore wud choose chinas ships, yes then I wud be impressed.”

    Going by your line of reasoning, why did Singapore get Iglas when Igla was eliminated due to technical reasons during evaluations conducted be several countries. I’m not disputing what you said about Singapore’s procurement but your line of reasoning which is silly.

    Dave – ”Chinas quality, reliability , originality and maintence , spares and such has improved but slower than korea or japan before.”

    What a broad statement to make. The fact remains that even Western companies and Japanese an South Korean ones [in non military deals] have not delivered on time and on spec. Again : to ease your concerns; most of the main components of the LMS will be sourced from Western suppliers but then again, even Western suppliers at times have failed to deliver on time and on spec [even when the customer ordered and paid on time]……

  34. With the tight allocation to fullfill big dream of 15 to 5 program, i think this is the best decision by RMN and gomen to purchase china made LMS. If people are talking about getting ships from other countries such as france german uk us etc this program will be never never ever executed; no money to pay for expensive things, it is simple as that. Plan will only be a dream. So actually this decision is a good move for the program. BNS as a main contractor should come out with a good design ship (modification) according to rmn specs required.

  35. When SG got igla it not jus concern abt the missile. SG bought the tech to modify and update it and most most important to integrtate into SG air defend network which is complicated. Some vendor do not let buy the tech. SG was not only able to modify I-hawk late in it lifespan. Now I-hawk is being replace by Aster 30 SMTP.

    Wut I say is tat each country got it need and requirement..need to see the details.

    Hoping nxt year they reveal the dome. it here in Sg.

  36. Tomahawk – ”When SG got igla it not jus concern abt the missile.”

    My reference to Igla was in response to some saying something about only being impressed if something was bought by Singapore. Hence me bringing up Igla. Singapore bought Spike [a great missile] but others eliminated Spike during trials and bought Javelin. Doesn’t mean Spike is inferior of course.

  37. Singapore pursues standardisation to a high degree. So when the SAF buys 3 different MANPADS class systems and operates each of them for a long period of time, it is an unusual case in the SAF and there have to be reasons.

    These 3 systems are the Mistral, RBS-70 and Igla. Mistral is mainly used by the Navy and is on its way out. It was on the Victory class corvette until replaced by Barak 1, and on the Endurance class LPD until replaced by the Typhoon/Bushmaster. It will be gone when the Fearless class patrol vessel is replaced by the LMV.

    Igla and RBS-70 are used by the air force in an expeditionary role. RBS-70 is operated as a ground mount and on wheeled V-200, Igla is only operated on tracked M-113.

  38. In other news.. 1) SG buys H225M – Medium Lift Helicopter and CH-47F – Heavy Lift Helicopter.

    2) Latest Sg defend exhibition 2016 shows drawings of XXX dome and war chariot tank…

  39. “1) SG buys H225M – Medium Lift Helicopter and CH-47F – Heavy Lift Helicopter.”

    A logical choice considering the Cougar is based on the Super Puma they already operate.

    “2) Latest Sg defend exhibition 2016 shows drawings of XXX dome and war chariot tank…”

    I went there. Where were these drawings? I only saw existing RSAF assets at the Island Air Defence exhibit and an autonomous M113, didn’t see any tank.

  40. @AM the drawings are at the very last bit, just before exiting the exhibition. Looks to me to be school childrens’ drawings

  41. Oh those that school children are invited to draw.

    On a serious note, RSAF does operate the radar for Iron Dome, EL/M2084.

  42. Getting back to cost comparisons, South Korea just ordered 8 units of 500 ton, 62m OPV at $28 million (RM120 million) each.

    Btw, Durjoy has a complement of 60. That’s 1.5 to double what many ships of the same size have.

    Reply
    Does the price includes the arms and other equipment?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


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