SHAH ALAM: The government today signed an MOU with a Turkish shipbuilder towards the procurement of a single multi-purpose mission ship for the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA). The agreement was signed between Home Ministry secretary-general Awang Alik and chairman of Desan Shipyard Cenk Ismail Kaptonoglu.
The MOU is among eleven signed in Putrajaya today and witnessed by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is on a two-day official visit. The MOUs is to enhance cooperation in sectors such as energy transition, disaster management, defence, trade, and media.
The MOU for the joint committee for defence products was signed by Defence Minister DS Khaled Nordin and Turkish Defence Industry secretary Prof Holuk Horgun.
It is likely that the design, speficifications and price of MPMS is still under negotiations as only the MOU was signed today. If they are quick the LOI could be signed at LIMA 2025 this May. It is unclear what design is to be chosen for the MPMS as checks on Desan website did not reveal anything. If the LOI was not signed at LIMA, it is likely either MMEA or Desan will display a model of the ship at the show.
Malaysian Defence in November reported that the MMEA was looking to Turkiye for its MPMS. Based on the previous tender for the ship, the new vessel should 95 meter long and able to act as a mothership for its smaller vessels. Perhaps, Desan will take a design from another Turkish shipyard to meet the MMEA requirement.
An infographic posted by MMEA several days after the 2025 budget was announced stated that the mothership will cost RM350 million (see above). The director-general did not say how many more will be bought in the future but from the first vessel’s cost we know that a three-ship fleet – like the OPVs – will cost some RM1.050 bilion.
But who knows, MMEA might end up specifying the Fassmer MPV 90 design to Desan and they just build them. Shipbuilding cost in Turkiye is cheaper than in the European continent. Even Singapore OPV which is a design from Fassmer is being built in Lithuania instead of Germany.
— Malaysian Defence
I thought dearsan will pitch the 72m model
I knew anwar’s iron brother wouldn’t disappoint.
While he’s here they could invite malaysia to join Kaan programme as well
It purely business transaction. If turkiye is such a brother, they would donate or slash price by 50%
The brotherly relationship i can see if that we get offer before other or more classified information on the product or not water-down version for export market.
That how we was with the French previously
“That how we was with the French previously”
AFAIK the French/EU are rather okay with selling full spec weapons unless its something that could threaten their own military security/integrity. The USA otoh…
I meet a French sales representative for naval back in 2018. He mentioned that we are showing less interest in their products compared to early 2000s. They rather focus on Indonesia, Vietnam and Thai. Sing is German stronghold
Usa otoh….. don’t want offer high end but if we get others suddenly will come offer or caatsa
This is a multi mission mothership.
1.why is it too small at less than 100mtrs.
No heli hanger,any full spec operation theatre,if this ship goes for humanitarian mission.the carrying capacity for carrying pax is too little.
Furthermore,can it act as a replenishment ship for all MMEA ships n navy ships?
Its suppose to be go anywhere do anything mothership.
As I mentioned in the earlier comments, they -MMEA/APMM- likely deleted the helicopter hangar as they want more people on board the ship. This is because MMEA/APMM is very conservative in their outlook and they do not like the use of automation on board their ships.
Furthermore, it must be noted that MMEA/APMM is rather constraint on the technical side especially when it comes to operating helicopters on board ships for weeks on end. It must be noted that even RMN would rather not operate helicopters on its ships if possible.
At 99m its quite on the small side for a ‘mothership’. So most probably less endurance at sea. The main purpose of a mothership is to extend one’s reach at sea. For MMEA/APMM use ideally a length of 120m would be just nice.
The endurance is 30 days as mentioned in the story. There is no need for higher endurance as its nearest port is less than 12 hours away. It is not like we are sailing to the Pacific.
tangent – “I meet a French sales representative for naval back in 2018. He mentioned that we are showing less interest in their products compared to early 2000s”
Obviously. The politics have changed and budgets have become tight. Under Najib the French, who already had a long presence here, had a strong pull. In the late 1980’s up to the mid 1990’s it was British Aerospace.
Now it’s the turn of newer players like Turkey and South Korea who from many years ago tried and were eager to collaborate with us and sell stuff. The inhibiting factor was us.
Tangent – “The brotherly relationship”
It has been greatly exaggerated. As I mentioned to someone here who was going on about how Erdogan and Anwar are supposedly so close – Turkey must as well help us pay off 1MDB debts. Erdogan and Anwar are friends with a lot of people, they are also politicians.
Tangent – “they would donate or slash price by 50%”
The Turks are in it for the revenue, not for charity. If we wanted things to be donated or sold at “friendship” prices [like Thailand got in the past and certain other countries get, we should be in Beijing ingratiating ourselves with our hosts, not in Turkey. The Chinese would be only too happy, having spent almost 2 decades trying to sell us stuff but making only modest sales.
Thanks to Wikileaks we know the Chinese were very frustrated at their lack of success selling us things despite all types of attractive offers on their part and how we trust the Americans more.
“AFAIK the French/EU are rather okay with selling full spec weapons”
There are certain things they still won’t sell. Would the French sell us a missile that breaches MTCR? Would the Germans freely share tech with us which was developed with another European partner and was “cutting edge”?
The Americans aren’t the only ones who can be selective, which imposes cobditions on sales, which don’t freely hand out source and object codes and are selective in deciding who gets certain level of specs for certain things.
On Turkey. As everyone knows as part of major reforms under Kamal, it became a secular state. As I was told by someone who was part of a high level delegation which visited Turkey in the late 1990’s [yes the Turks have been engaging us that far back] , the Turks were deeply offended when a high level MAF delegation refused to lay a wreath at the tomb of Mustapha Kamal on the grounds it was unIslamic.
Even the South Koreans will not sell us anything that will breach the MTCR let alone the French. Though who knows now days.
Yes but the impression many still have is that it’s only the Americans which won’t sell us stuff with the full capabilities, only them which sell with conditions attached, only them which don’t readily hand out source and object codes, etc.
Depends. Who is the customer, how much is he buying, how important is he in the overall strategic scheme of things, etc. India whom the U.S. is, engaging to counter China, will be given a, certain level of leeway. The UAE which is a strategic partner and spend a lot will also be given a level of leeway.
As for us, we talk a lot and make lots of promises but end up canceling things and when we buy it’s in small numbers, with no certainty we’ll buy again.
“Would the French sell us a missile that breaches MTCR?”
But anything below it is free market. The USA is far more restrictive.
“The Americans aren’t the only ones who can be selective”
USA was adamant at selling us AMRAAMS for years after SG had bought them and even after that we had to place them in reserve storage under USA control in Guam for years later. The French would have no problems selling us BVR Meteors & Storm Shadow/SCALP if we gotten Rafales from the get go (and if we can pay for them). No need to store in France with the French holding the keys BS. With exceptions the Germans are prolly 2nd most restrictive to USA but thats just in face only, as their clandestinely OK with proliferation of their weapons via 3rd parties like RM-Denel, SA (which I had mentioned before).
Azlan “Thanks to Wikileaks we know the Chinese were very frustrated at their lack of success selling us things despite all types of attractive offers on their part and how we trust the Americans”
They are quite the delusional bunch aren’t they? Or at the very least extremely optimistic
The issue was not that the French would not be more willing to sell us stuff but the fact that the Europeans too don’t readily hand out things at full spec and without certain pre conditions.
The issue with the AMRAAMs is when we bought the Hornets the Clinton administration had a policy of not being the first to introduce a new capability to the region, in this case a semi active missile. Thailand also made a request for AMRAAM to arm the 8 Hornets it ordered and later cancelled. They openly said it was in response to us buying the R-77 for the Fulcrums, which we never did until years later and for the MKMs.
Meanwhile we lost interest and were smarting from the fact that we did not get clearance to buy it in the 1990’s. We only made a request to buy it after Singapore had already ordered it, made possible by a change in policy buy the U. S.
BTW the French supposedly build on an option in certain electronics which can be disabled if an export customer misbehaved. This was reported for a while in the defence press in the late 1990’s.
No idea about the “delusional” part but they did expect more success that they did given all the offers of discounts, joint production/assembly, partnerships and financing they made.