KD Perkasa Delivered

The new KD Perkasa. Note the space on her bridge. There is also no main radar on her mast. It also appears that the Y gun has also been taken off. RMN.

SHAH ALAM: KD Perkasa delivered. RMN has officially taken delivery of KD Perkasa, pennant number 3512 after undergoing the Obsolescence Programme (OP) on May 9. Perkasa underwent the OP with a rehulling which Malaysian Defence is calling the OP Plus.

The OP Plus is the culmination of the FAC fleet upgrade programme as it combined the two other aspects of the initiative – repowering (changing the powerpack, propellors and generators) and with new hull and modifications to general arrangement of the ship.

Western Fleet command Logistics Commander First Admiral Shaiful Bahari Baharuddin receiving KD Perkasa on behalf of RMN. RMN

The work on Perkasa started in late November 2020 and it supposed to be completed last year but delayed to the various issues caused by the pandemic. Perkasa had undergone the OP Plus at the Geliga Slipway Sdn Bhd in Kemaman. From RMN:

KEJAYAAN OBSOLESCENCE PROGRAM (OP) KD PERKASA LAKAR SEJARAH TLDM
KEMAMAN, 9 Mei – OP KD PERKASA melakar sejarah sebagai program unik, pertama kali dilaksanakan di planet ini. Unik disebabkan aktiviti OP seolah-olah membuat sebuah kapal baharu mengguna kembali sebahagian kecil peralatan legasi.
Di atas keberhasilan projek ini, Panglima Logistik Barat Laksamana Pertama Ts. Shaiful Bahari bin Baharuddin telah menyempurnakan majlis penerimaan OP KD PERKASA di limbungan Geliga Shipyard Sdn Bhd. Majlis diserikan dengan kehadiran Setiausaha Bahagian (SUB) Kewangan KEMENTAH, Datuk Muhamad Zamani bin Mohd Ali dan SUB Pembangunan, Encik Mohd Radzuan bin Abdul Manaf.
Program ini merupakan inisiatif terkini cetusan idea warga Navy People iaitu kapal dilaksanakan projek senggaraan in-lieu kepada refit, tetapi melibatkan penukaran secara total badan kapal (re-hull), sistem kuasagerak, penjanaan tenaga elektrik, sistem distribusi elektrik, hotel services” serta konfigurasi semula General Arrangement (GA). Hanya peralatan yang tidak usang akan di salvage, diselenggara dan dipasang semula di hull yang baharu.
OP KD PERKASA ini boleh dianggap breakthrough, inovasi luar kotak yang berhasrat mengubah persepsi terhadap tatacara pelaksanaan selenggaraan berjadual kapal TLDM di limbungan. Ini kerana secara tradisinya, kapal akan menjalani selenggaraan berjadual refit apabila tiba rutinnya. Namun disebabkan 3 faktor utama iaitu best value for money, memastikan jangka hayat aset lebih panjang dan Belanja Mengurus (Operating Expenditure – OE) akan datang tidak membebankan Kerajaan, maka pendekatan alternatif yakni OP telah dilancarkan. Selain KD PERKASA, OP melibatkan 2 lagi projek iaitu KD PERDANA dan KD GANYANG di mana projek kini sedang giat diteruskan.
Delegasi dari Unit Perancang Ekonomi (EPU), Kementerian Ekonomi yang terlibat di peringkat awal OP turut hadir di majlis penerimaan. Delegasi tersebut amat terkesima dengan inisiatif warga Navy People. Ini disebabkan putik-putik Success Story 1 daripada 3 projek OP telah dicapai, walaupun menghadapi cabaran sepanjang pandemik Covid-19 selama 2 tahun, termasuk impak Shanghai lock-down semasa endamik yang telah menjejaskan rantaian supply-chain.
Success Story OP KD PERKASA ini membuktikan bahawa:
1. Limbungan tempatan berkeupayaan penuh untuk membina kapal bersaiz kurang dari 80 meter tanpa perlu bantuan pihak luar negara, kecuali full-fledged sistem kombat.
2. Terdapat beberapa design-house tempatan yang mampu merekabentuk kapal dengan baik, khususnya kapal jenis non-combatant.
3. Rekabentuk in-house membolehkan lebih banyak produk pribumi (indigenous product) serta bahan tempatan yang type approved digunapakai, berbanding jika menggunakan rekabentuk limbungan luar negara yang dikesan menetapkan syarat yang ketat.
4. Kos perolehan tanpa sistem kombat bagi sebuah kapal berdasarkan rekabentuk rakyat Malaysia dan dibina oleh limbungan tempatan adalah lebih kompetitif iaitu lebih kurang:
4.1 Satu pertiga (1/3) kos perolehan jika menggunakan rekabentuk luar negara, tetapi kapal dibina di Malaysia.
4.2 Satu perempat (1/4) kos perolehan jika berdasarkan rekabentuk limbungan luar negara dan kapal dibina di premis mereka.
5. Peningkatan penglibatan pemain industri Bumiputera di projek ini.
Warga Navy People wajar berbangga dengan inisiatif terkini serta unik yang dihasilkan, di mana sebelum ini boleh dianggap a dream within a dream atau angan-angan Mat Jenin. Namun inisiatif tersebut yang berpaksikan mantra new way of doing things membuktikan angan-angan Mat Jenin boleh menjadi kenyataan sekiranya terdapat inovasi atau kreativiti, pushing-through with relentless effort serta komitmen yang tinggi oleh semua pihak yang terlibat.
Sehubungan itu, warga Navy People perlu terus berinovasi secara agresif untuk menghasilkan penambahbaikan berterusan demi memastikan TLDM lebih unggul, cemerlang, gemilang dan terbilang.

A group photograph next to the newly delivered KD Perkasa. Note the arrangement of her main superstructure. RMN

Do note the release above was written by RMN Chief Engineer Rear Admiral Mohd Shaiful Adli Chung himself, who had initiated the OP and OP Plus programme. It is interesting to note that the release stated that two FAC of the Perdana class, KD Perdana -the lead ship and KD Ganyang, the youngest one – are undergoing the same OP Plus. Perdana was last seen at the Kuantan naval region headquarters on April 27. (see below)
KD Perkasa, a picture taken in 2018. Note her bridge has four windows on the side compared to three now. Also note the canvas awning just behind the bridge. KD Perkasa

Anyhow from the pictures, the new Perkasa main upper superstructure has been extended to the back, which meant it no longer need to use a canvas awning at the top. The new arrangement, however, is more conservative than the one done on KD Sri Perlis and her sister ships.
Mindef secretary-general DS Muez Abdul Muez visited MSET shipyard in early 2022. Note the ship in the background. Its either KD Sri Sabah or KD Sri Sarawak. The ship looked similar to newly modified KD Sri Perlis. ATM

The pictures also seemed to indicate that the Y gun (rear gun) – the Bofors L70 40mm – has been taken off Perkasa.
KD Pendekar (nearest) and KD Perdana at the Mawila 1 open ship day on April 27.

It also appears, that Perkasa has not been fitted with the EO turret and other capabilities as her sister ships, KD Gempita and KD Pendekar.
KD Laksamana Muhammad Amin (136) being taken out from GOMS covered facility where the refit programme was carried out in December 2022. Note the newly painted hull and superstructure. GOMS

It is likely that this will be done after delivery under a different contract. This is the same thing to be done with KD Laksamana Muhamad Amin which is also undergoing the OP Plus at the Grade One Marine Shipyard in Lumut, Perak.

Perhaps, one will be able to spot KD Perkasa at the RMN Regional One headquarters in Kuantan this weekend as they are having another open day programme on May 13 and 14.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2186 Articles
Shah Alam

34 Comments

  1. With new hull, new superstructure, new engines, basically new everything except for the bofors 57mm, that is a brand new ship.

    If you go look into google map of the geliga shipyard, you can see the old hull of KD perkasa, with a big hole over its engine room, just a few meters away from the new KD perkasa.

    The low cost of 1/3 to 1/4 of a comparable foreign design means that duplicating this ship build for tasks that does not need to have CMS, like for the coast guard, will be very cost effective.

    Hopefully the IP for this is held by the navy, and future builds could be tendered to various shipyards using the same blueprint for KD Perkasa.

  2. While PRC & ROK are ship building capital in the world (mostly thanks to state subsidies). MY,SG & ID are leaders in ship retrofit, repurposed etc etc.(mostly due to our geography rather than state interventions). The low cost is realized due to some parts our industrial specialization capabilities.

    Hopefully the experience gained would allow us to repowered & rehulled the Kedah in a decade times.

    The most interesting part however is

    “Satu pertiga (1/3) kos perolehan jika menggunakan rekabentuk luar negara, tetapi kapal dibina di Malaysia.
    4.2 Satu perempat (1/4) kos perolehan jika berdasarkan rekabentuk limbungan luar negara dan kapal dibina di premis mereka”

    Based on RMN on estimate is only an increase in 25% of total cost compared to CBU ordered from overseas. And the increase is more then worth it as it increases the payment in MYR with local spillovers effect ranging from increase in employment & taxes to improvement in industrial capabilities rather than paying fully in foreign currency.

    Thus the usual ‘200%’ markup is more towards R&D (in the host country that doesnt benefits us as a country in any way) due to our request for specialized varient rather than the usual suspects (by some here) that’s our local boys & industry are cheating us dirty. Hopefully this would put to rest the villainization of our hardworking wo/man in the industry who makes an honest living.

    The real villain is & had always been high ranking decision maker who decides to order specialized varient despite the availability of off the shelf platforms while Keeping on changing platforms & supplies. RSN meanwhile achieve economics of scale by continuous shipbuilding programme utilizing a single suppliers who worked with the same sub suppliers.

    Personally the best suppliers from us is like RSN from the north sea states. It allowed us to pick several vendors but still gain economics of scale as north sea states navies utilities mostly the same CMS, radars, weapons & so on. With ship specially designed to counter russian threats in the confined north sea either alone, with each other or with the American.

  3. To give some backstory the FACs were intended to be upgraded in the late 1990’s and when that plan was shelved the RMN made plans for their eventual retirement. Thanks to the politicians; a worst case feasibility stuff done to extend their lives became a reality.

    Like various other things we’ve bought; we really got our money’s worth with the 3 FAC classes. We used them extensively for several decades; including for extended EEZ patrols; a role they weren’t designed for. A bummer is that during the monsoon season they often can’t put to sea and they can very uncomfortable for crews.

  4. Zaft – ”Hopefully the experience gained would allow us to repowered & rehulled the Kedah in a decade times.”

    In a decade the Kedahs might not need a rehull and ”hopefully” they well be replaced on schedule wen the times comes rather than the RMN having to resort to extreme measures out of sheer necessity. Note that although feasibility studies were made the expectation was that rehulling and other measures would not have to be taken; i.e. in 2013 a bemused RMN officer friend [they tend not to have ”tunnel vision”] told me that a plan had been made to rehull the Laksamanas but that the expectation was that things wouldn’t lead to that.

    Zaft – ”With ship specially designed to counter russian threats in the confined north sea either alone,”

    No. Depends on which period of the Cold War and even today in the event of the balloon going up the area of operations might be in the Black Sea; Norwegian Sea or Baltic rather than the North Sea.

    Zaft – ”that’s our local boys & industry are cheating us dirty.”

    Understand that what the local industry those is enabled by the very system the politicians have put in place.

    Zaft – ”The real villain is & had always been high ranking decision maker ”

    ””The real villain is & had always been” politicians/decision makers who placed priority on national interests rather than than the end user or tax payer; who created the very system in which defence procurement is part of the patronage system; who have am indifferent mindset towards defence and who have an inherent inability to learn from mistakes.

    Zaft – ”While PRC & ROK are ship building capital in the world (mostly thanks to state subsidies).”

    Leave it to you to jump to erroneous conclusions. It’s down to a variety of factors including having the needed fundamentals in place.

    Zaft – ”(mostly due to our geography rather than state interventions).”

    Poppycock. It’s down to a variety of factors related to economics, politics, priorities, etc.

  5. So, why exactly can’t we do the same with the Meko? We already got the blueprint and we can source locally made CMS why can’t we produce a cheap Meko by the dozen instead of paying for Ada?

  6. That is one handsome boat.

    It can be clearly seen that the new hull cross section is different to the original, with a modern “chine” leaving the sides flatter than the original hull.

    The bridge is also wider than before, with bigger windows.

    In all a much more refined overall design compared to what was done to the vospers.

  7. @ dundun

    Why?

    Because the kedah class IP is owned by BNS, not the government.

    As you know, BNS is now in the deep end of trying to complete the Gowinds. They cannot afford another distraction in the shape of building a new Kedah class, or any large ships for that matter.

    There are shipyards that can build ships more than 80m in length. MMHE, Muhibbah, Labuan Shipyard, Shin Yang among them that could. But to do self design + do systems integration to those size of naval ships? I don’t think so.

    Back to LMS B2

    Now with added information about the local capabilities of designing and building ships under 80m with low build costs, how can this information affect the wants and needs for the LMS B2?

    If we can get 4 locally designed and built 80m ship for the budget of 1 imported ship, so instead of just 6, we could afford 24 ships on the same budget.

  8. Since this has been materialized, why not to offer the yards to built another 3 or 4 unit of the same size and capacity.. and to enhances combat capability at least to have SSM launcher / SAM – MBDA simbad RC / etc.

  9. … – “If we can get 4 locally designed and built 80m ship for the budget of 1 imported ship, so instead of just 6, we could afford 24 ships on the same budget”

    On paper. In reality does any local yard actually have a design available and as Marhalim pointed out “most of the ship yards can only do ships up to 80 metres”…

    Hyde – ” why not to offer the yards to built another 3 or 4 unit of the same size and capacity”

    The RMN does not want any more FACs or designs similar to the FACs operated due to inherent issues with the design and operational needs. As it stands the FACs have inherent issues with regards to sea keeping and endurance and that is why the LMSs which are intended to replace the FACs are larger and of a different design.

    Seakeeping is ultimately driven by displacement, design, sea state, skill if the crew and luck. With regards to to the ship it’s actually design which is crucial; note that from antiquity man has been operating small ships for various things; i.e. Viking longboats sailed across the Atlantic; Swede corvettes operated in the Gulf of Aden, etc.

  10. Modification job also got delayed..Lol..We really going to be a ghett* Navy in near future..Navy only on the name but without ships that can actually engage..And someone clearly adamant that the era of FACs already over..

  11. @ azlan,

    So for LMS B2, why not

    buy locally designed and built less than 80m ships instead of the current want for 92m corvettes? So we can get more ships instead of just 6.

    or for the exact same design as the OP Perkasa, buy that ship for MMEA NGPC batch 2 requirement? If we can get 3 ships at the price of 1, for the original budget of 6 NGPC we could get 18 ships instead.

    As for designs of small boats that can have good seakeeping in heavy seas, below is a sample of what can be done, from the design point of view
    https://youtu.be/igVY3hkbgVY

  12. … – ”So for LMS B2, why not”

    It goes back to what I said : does any local yard have a ready design? Great on paper like many things but the reality can be different.

    … – ”for the exact same design as the OP Perkasa”

    What makes you think the RMN wants ”same design as the OP Perkasa”? As it stands the FACs can’t even put to sea during monsoon periods and the RMN has long specified a need for a slightly larger ship with a different design; i.e. LMS… Note [mentioned before] that FACs sized ships are not intended for extended patrols in the EEZ [which is what we employ them for]; meant for coastal ops or sea denial mission in a littoral setting and of limited duration. The RMN is only re-lifing the FACs out of sheer necessity; not due to operational suitability – measure of success has to be weighted against measure of efficiency.

  13. @ Firdaus,

    It is 90% new shipbuild using budget that is supposed to be for maintenance only.

    A brand new ship gotten at the same cost as a regular ship maintenance cycle. With all the covid-19 challenges seeing the ship completed is quite an achievement.

    Yes, combat use of the exact same design of the of the likes of KD Perkasa (Spica-M), Combattante, etc is over. But ships of similar size, but with totally different modern design, having good seakeeping in heavy seas while having long range and endurance similar to frigates, that could be something of use in the future.
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LMSB1.jpg

  14. Firdaus “And someone clearly adamant that the era of FACs already over..”

    I believe Marhalim had reported sometimes ago that MMEA & RMN had cut a deal in which RMN would stayed out of ship below the FAC size categories going forward.

    Azlan “The real villain is & had always been” politicians/decision makers who placed priority on national interests rather than than the end user or tax payer; who created the very system in which defence procurement is part of the patronage system; who have am indifferent mindset towards defence and who have an inherent inability to learn from mistakes”

    The correct terms for what you are defining is corruption & personal interest.

    Dumdum “So, why exactly can’t we do the same with the Meko? We already got the blueprint and we can source locally made CMS why can’t we produce a cheap Meko by the dozen instead of paying for Ada?”

    Corruption and/or personal interest?

  15. ” What makes you think the RMN wants ”same design as the OP Perkasa”? ”

    Where exactly did I say that it is for RMN?

    Please fully comprehend my statements before attempting to reply to it.

  16. … – “Please fully comprehend my statements before attempting to reply to it”

    Touchy. Touchy. It wasn’t a case of not “comprehending” your “statements” but “misreading” it. A slight difference …

  17. @Zaft..Still need to replace that FAC fleet though and to be completely honest we cant really afford to replace them 1 : 1 with 70m+ ships..Others can why cant us..Indonesians with KCR60,Koreans with yoon youngha..I knew2 their doctrine are not the same as ours but you get the idea

  18. Firdaus – ”We really going to be a ghett* Navy in near future..Navy only on the name but without ships that can actually engage..”

    What pray tell is a ”ghetto navy”? Also with regards to your ”without ships that can actually engage”; be specific instead of making blanket claims. ‘Engage” whom and under what operational circumstances?

    Firdaus – ”And someone clearly adamant that the era of FACs already over..”

    Do your research instead claiming what others said or didn’t. Nobody said ”the era of FACs already over”; merely that they have inherent issues and that there’s a reason why less FACs are operated compared to previous decades, why they have evolved.

    Zaft – ”MMEA & RMN had cut a deal in which RMN would stayed out of ship below the FAC size categories going forward.”

    The part where the RMN does not want any FAC sized ships because of inherent issues [long discussed] with the design and that’s precisely why the LMS’s [which will replace the FACs] are larger just escaped you didn’t it? Trust you to unecessarily convolute things.

    Zaft – ”The correct terms for what you are defining is corruption & personal interest.”
    .
    ”Corruption” and ”personal interest” are parts of the equation but aren’t the only ones

  19. Actually what’s so confusing with the FAC issue? RMN has since the NGPV days, planned to transition the fleet to larger ships designed to operate away from littoral waters (using the British definition of littoral – close to shore). FAC being re-hulled is not because RMN wants ships of that size, but because they have no choice. If the 27 ship NGPV program (i.e. Kedah class) of the 1990s had been successful, the entire FAC fleet, the Laksamana’s, the Kasturi’s and maybe the Lekiu’s would have been retired today. Regardless of what has been done, these FAC ships are still very old ships, and ill equipped by today’s standards. For all intent and purpose, these are ships more suited for MMEA use than RMN in 2023. Even the LMS Keris class are more suited as MMEA ships. That the Keris class isn’t want the RMN wanted isn’t exactly a secret. But just like the FAC rehull, that’s what RMN can get, so they just take. But it doesn’t mean RMN wants such ships (e.g. FAC, Keris class).

  20. These rehulled FACs are practically brand new

    We all know these FACs are ill equpped. The issue people are debating right now is that would an enlarged, modernized, better equpped ship based on lessons drawn on the rehull project be a viable options for future OPV for both RMN or MMEA

  21. What is the displacement and type of equipment of the original Kedah class? That is the RMN baseline. That the Navy was willing reduce the number of LMS Batch 2 ships ordered (originally a 8 ship request but reduced to 3) but not the equipment (e.g. no FFBNW, must have anti-air and anti-ship) explains why enlarged FAC is not viable for the RMN – its not what the RMN wants. If RMN is forced to buy enlarged FAC (e.g. Keris class), it won’t be what they want, but what they can get. People ought not to entertain the idea of buying such ships because someone somewhere making decisions might actually think its a brilliant idea to buy such ships. For MMEA, enlarged FAC is viable. Consider Austal’s Cape class. Ready design (15 ordered, 10 delivered), 20+ days endurance, good range (3000+ nmi), up to Sea State 4, top speed 25+ knots, able to mount a 30mm cannon, and the AUD is much friendlier to the MYR. If not just use the Keris class as the template for the MMEA. There really ought to be no consideration of enlarged FACs for RMN.

  22. kel – ”Actually what’s so confusing with the FAC issue? ”

    Who is ”confused”? Want the narrative?

    – We bought the FACs at a time when our operational requirements and threat perceptions were different; they served their purpose then.
    – Eventhough FACs were designed for sea denial in a littoral setting we used them for extended patrols in the EEZ; a role in which their range, endurance and seakeeping became an issue.
    – A plan to upgrade them in the 1990’s [new missiles, water jets and other things were looked at] never came to fruition.
    – The Kedah programme was intended to replace the Kedah, Keris and Sabah PCs and eventually the FACs.
    – Come the early to mid 2000’s the plan to was retire them but thanks to the politicians the RMN had to resort to certain measures to keep all 3 classes running.
    – Inherent issues with FACs are range, endurance, sea keeping; inability to defend themselves against serious threats and limitations caused to sensors on account of a low freeboard and vibration. As I’ve pointed out to those who claim certain things; MTb/S-Boot ops in WW2/ops in 1973; Praying Mantis; Battle of the Bubiyan Straits; etc are goof examples of the limitations of FACs or FAC sized ships.

    Kel – ”Even the LMS Keris class are more suited as MMEA ships. ”

    Not really; in terms of range, endurance and seakeeping they are a jump ahead of the FACs and is why the RMN has long hjad no intention to get anymore FAC sized ships.

    kel – ”Regardless of what has been done, these FAC ships are still very old ships”
    kel – ”but because they have no choice.”

    People are fond of saying they are as good as new and will insist so but I’ve heard complains from people who actually served on them and who are in the know; despite all the new kit; issues remain.

    kel – ”If the 27 ship NGPV program (i.e. Kedah class) of the 1990s had been successful, the entire FAC fleet, the Laksamana’s, the Kasturi’s and maybe the Lekiu’s would have been retired today.”

    Incorrect. The NGOPV programme had no bearing on the Lekius. As I’ve pointed out before the plan then was 6 Lekius as Team A and the NGOPVs as the RMN’s Team B. The Laksamanas were bought ostensibly due to a delay with ther Lekius [if you’re interested in what delays; ask] and Amin Shah originally tried to sell a pair of uncompleted Mekos intended for Argentina and the Laksamanas weren’t the firs choice but a pair of Lupos made for Iraq.

    kel – ”But it doesn’t mean RMN wants such ships (e.g. FAC, Keris class).”

    Incorrect. The RMN wants ships of a certain displacement; design, etc. The Keris class [never mind the fit out] came close and was poltically expedient.

    dundun – ”We all know these FACs are ill equpped.”

    For the roles they are intended to perform they are not ”’ill equipped”.

  23. Firdaus “afford to replace them 1 : 1 with 70m+ ships..Others can why cant us..Indonesians with KCR60,Koreans with yoon youngha..I knew2 their doctrine are not the same as ours but you get the idea”

    Most navies never get a 1 : 1 exchanged when they move to a newer bigger classes of ships. Most of the times, It’s the right things to do in a collective whole of nations interest way but it doesn’t serve those navies own interest thus a lot of those navies would be kicking, screaming & shouting while they get dragged & forced to do so.

    FAC are still useful in countering non state actors, smugglers, economics migrants and so on but as a tool to defend us from state actors its inadequate. Unlike ID we don’t have thousands of islands where the FAC can hide or land transport is next to impossible. We now have coastal roads from Teluk Melano all the way to Kudat. Thus the sea denial that the FAC once provide can be more effectively & economically done with land based asset. Something that OZ army would be procuring by sacrificing a lot of their armour capabilities.

    @dundun
    personally it is better for us in a collective whole of nations interest for those rehulled FAC, it’s staff & it’s base be transferred to MMEA. But really doubt that those 2 agencies would want to do it. One doesn’t want to lose ship,personnel & bases while the others unwilling to take in Preloved ship,personnel & bases. It’s something they would probably reluctantly do if being pressured enough by other agencies, ministry & taxpayer.but not something they likely would do willing fully.

  24. Kel – ” For all intent and purpose, these are ships more suited for MMEA use than RMN in 2023. ”

    Mot really. Depends where they are operated; in the EEZ for extended period? No..
    As it stands the RMN has no choice but to retain them until they can be replaced and until the MMEA is sufficiently funded the RMN is the only agency which can fill in the gap; irrespective of some dogmatically spinning things differently. Even if the MMEA had 500 OPVS the RMN however would still [like all navies] have various non fighting or peacetime roles.

    Zaft – ”Thus the sea denial that the FAC once provide can be more effectively & economically done with land based asset.”

    Poppycock. Various things come into play to achieve sea denial; none’s a substitute.

    Zaft – ”but as a tool to defend us from state actors its inadequate. ”

    Yes… They aren’t intended to go against the PLAN’s South Sea Fleet or the Kaiserliche’s High Seas Fleet.

    zaft – ”Something that OZ army would be procuring by sacrificing a lot of their armour capabilities.”

    And you may have noticed [or not] that the ADF has all the enablers needed … Things don’t operate in a vacuum.

    zaft – ”FAC are still useful in countering non state actors, smugglers, economics migrants and so on but as a tool to defend us from state actors its inadequate.”

    Cut the obfuscastion. FACs in the RMN perform certain peacetime duties in line with operational requirements and the fact that there are no ready replacements.

    Zaft – ”it’s staff & it’s base be transferred to MMEA.”

    Again : the RMN has neither the staff or assets which can be transferred. Before going off tangent understand all the services are resource constrained and understand the MMEA has inherent issues. Many factors come into play; you aware of the challenges faced when the MMEA was raised or issues related to the transfer of the Marine police to the MMEA? Ranks come into play; seniority and other issues. What happens if a certain officer is close to retiring or is in cold storage? What happens if the MMEA has no need for ‘X’ number of people with a certain rank? What happens if there is the manpower but insufficient number of positions? Think…

  25. Whatever is d issue raised herein, d new perkasa is without main radar, how do the platform perform it’s task without d surface search radar ? What about CMS n FCS for d the 57mm main gun ? Any plans to install a 20-30mm gun to replace the good old 40mm ? To me it’s a good idea to upgrade all 16 fac’s for low intensity warfare purposes. Anyway JMSDF have been retiring 12 units off DDG, anyways of fetting them for TLDM to supplement the Kasturi, Lekiu n Kedah ? Japanese government if I’m not mistaken has allowed the sales of weapons to foreign governments. Same goes for the Goerge Leygues of d French navy.

  26. The FACs have been operating without their main radars for some time now. Thats the reason the plan is to install the CMS on them and using the EO turret to control the 57mm gun as with KD Pendekar and KD Gempita. No money to buy new guns. AFAIK, the navy is against any idea of getting second hand ships.

  27. kamal – ” how do the platform perform it’s task without d surface search radar ? ”

    In lieu of the original radar various RMN ships have a Furuno commercial radar. The main means of detecting intruders isn’t the onboard ship radars; those are use to keep track of contacts. It’s no secret that we have radars on some of our reefs.

    kamal – ”To me it’s a good idea to upgrade all 16 fac’s for low intensity warfare purposes. ”

    Manuy things on paper are a good idea but given that funds are tight the RMN is very selective on what it spends on. With the FACs and Laksamanas the intention is to not spend more than absolutely needed on them.

    kamal – ” Anyway JMSDF have been retiring 12 units off DDG”

    What are there manning levels? Do they share any commonality? Are they maintenance extensive? The issue is not a lack of pre owned hulls but other factors. Note that the RMN has made it a priority to reduce not increase its logistical/support footprint and resources are constrained.

    kamal – ” Same goes for the Goerge Leygues of d French navy.”

    Which is over 30 odd years old or more …

  28. Recently read that Dearsan of Turkiye actually has two 70+ metre ships on offer: the OPV76 and the C74 corvette. As these are new products, perhaps these can be considered as watered down examples of the more potent and larger Turkish corvettes, Dearsan C92 and the Ada-class.
    They aren’t the perfect answer for the LMS Batch 2 needs but if we do actually manage to procure ‘all the LMS Batch 2 ships’ that the Navy desires, perhaps the government is more amenable to the idea of less expensive new corvettes and that the design way pave the way for our local shipbuilders to actually learn/ build/ deliver warships on schedule. (Minus BNS!)
    * Someone else here did mention our shipbuilders are capable of building ships to the 80 metre mark.

  29. Off topic. What happen with the Kedah class armament upgrade? Are those project cancelled?

  30. Taib – ”They aren’t the perfect answer for the LMS Batch 2 needs but if we do actually manage to procure ‘all the LMS Batch 2 ships’ that the Navy desires”

    Keep in mind three things.

    – Whatever we get will have a pretty basic weapons fit due to budgetary issues.
    – Whatever we get will have to be operated at a systems level [i.e. the ship tied in with other assets] in order to get the most of the capabilities offered.
    – There are many things we can get but the reality is that a derivative of the Ada class will eventually be ordered.

    Taib – ”Someone else here did mention our shipbuilders are capable of building ships to the 80 metre mark.”

    Maybe but even if a local yard can construct a ship as large as the Battlestar Galactica the fact remains that no local yard has a design of its own and ultimately all the key components/systems will still have to be imported.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*