Kongsberg Confirmed NSM for LCS

NSM shortly after launch

SHAH ALAM: Norwegian multinational, Kongsberg Defence Systems, has announced an LOA from Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd for the supply of Naval Strike Missile (NSM) and its related equipment.

In a release issued today, Kongsberg stated that it has received a Letter of Award worth approximately 20 million EURO with Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd (BN Shipyard) in Malaysia, for NSM (Naval Strike Missile) ships equipment.

 Live firing with NSM missile from corvette HNoMS Gnist outside Andøya in Northern-Norway
Live firing with NSM missile from corvette HNoMS Gnist outside Andøya in Northern-Norway

“BN Shipyard is to design, build and deliver six (6) Littoral Combat Ships for the Royal Malaysian Navy based on the DCNS “Gowind class” design. The first ship is scheduled for delivery in 2020.”

A CGI of the RMN LCS.
A CGI of the RMN LCS.

“Kongsberg delivery is to prepare for NSM onboard the ships and consists of necessary fixed installations such as launchers, cables, electronics and integration to the combat management system SETIS to be provided by DCNS.

 A Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) is launched from the littoral combat ship USS Coronado (LCS 4) during missile testing operations off the coast of Southern California. The missile scored a direct hit on a mobile ship target. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Zachary D. Bell/Released)
A Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) is launched from the littoral combat ship USS Coronado (LCS 4) during missile testing operations off the coast of Southern California. The missile scored a direct hit on a mobile ship target. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Zachary D. Bell/Released)

“This agreement with Boustead Naval Shipyard is to prepare the future Royal Malaysian Littoral Combat Ships for NSM and confirms NSMs very strong competitiveness in the international market.

” Malaysia is the third user of this modern 5th generation anti-surface weapon”, says Harald Ånnestad, President of Kongsberg Defence Systems.

–Malaysian Defence

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

About Marhalim Abas 2141 Articles
Shah Alam


  1. nimitz says:
    May 3, 2015 at 10:41 am

    The way I look at TLDM asset plans, it is an aggressive plan with almost everything being covered. I assumed that they laid out almost all their plans for us to see so that we know what is offline when those bean counter decides. Maybe they being vocal so that those bean counter decides not against their requirements.

    From my conversations with the bean counters, upgrades are not a problem but when it comes to restocking ….that is when things heats up….
    shed says:
    May 1, 2015 at 10:58 am


    U do have a point on the laksmana’s. After concidering the options i would prefer an upgrade of the kedah given the tight budget, the age and the condition of the vessel. But the plan came from the RMN. In previous topics u were so adament that we listen to the end user point of view.. Things change. First they want this and now they want that. Its mind boggling. And as always if thing went south some poor guy will have to take the blame..

    Wish list.. is there an official wish list out there? U pointed out that the laksmana wasnt on the rmn wish list. But an article that ive read said so.. and no its not from utusan. This time i have to give it to u since u have the inside track and all. Regarding to the mahathir issue, was it the national interest card or was it simply his distrust with the US that ends up wth the laksmana purchase. I dont see what we can gain by going italian. Go polish get horse breeding. Go russian got barter trade and an astronaut. Go italian?

    Yes. I do agree that the RMN are short of hulls 4 peacetime duties. On that point i have to agree on the downgrade of the laksmana only if other surface vessels are brought up to par @ modernized. Not to mention a replacement 4 our fac m and g vessels. Ops sory there no such thing as fac m anymore..
    Azlan says:
    April 25, 2015 at 10:24 am

    The Kedahs are armed with 2 HMGs and 2 GPMGs [Janes only mentions the HMGs, which are mounted on the port and starboard wings]. I’ve seen the HMG mountings up close; they were supplied by FN Hestral. Will be interesting to see where – if the upgrade ever proceeds – the torp tubes will be mounted and what SAM has been specified for the other 2 Kedahs. The mention of ”equipment to support the operation of an ASW helicopter” is also interesting as all 6 have ASIST and refueling systems.
    D.W says:
    April 24, 2015 at 8:58 pm

    Janes updated it’s article of Kedah Class upgrade.

    “The other two vessels-in-class will be upgraded for anti-surface warfare (ASuW) operations. The RMN has said that it plans to equip the ships with an organic helicopter and surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles.

    However, the service declined to give further details on systems being considered for both the ASW and ASuW upgrades. “We have given our recommendations on the type of equipment that the vessels need, but approval will depend on funding and other requirements from the headquarters,” said the official.”
    D.W says:
    April 24, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    News of Kedah Class Upgrade.

    “Malaysia plans to upgrade four Kedah-class corvettes for ASW role”

    “The Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) plans to upgrade four of its Kedah (Meko 100 RMN)-class corvettes for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations, an RMN official has confirmed.”

    “To achieve the ASW upgrade, the RMN is proposing to equip the four vessels with torpedo launchers, towed array and hull-mounted sonars, and equipment to support the operation of an ASW helicopter, the official told the annual OPVs & Corvettes Asia Pacific conference in Singapore.”

    AM says:
    April 23, 2015 at 5:57 pm


    Get your facts right. The only SSMs accepted by the launchers you mentioned are Asroc, Tomahawk and Scalp- none of which we are getting. Harpoon, Exocet etc all use box launchers which in our case will be mounted amidships.
    Wazir says:
    April 23, 2015 at 12:54 pm

    Noone is concerned that the NSMs have their own launchers? Meaning we can’t use them on Mk41/Sylver VLSs?

    Those box launchers can only be used for NSMs only!

    We are not getting the Mk41 or Sylver VLSS. If we get the Exocet it is not fired from both VL.
    Azlan says:
    April 22, 2015 at 6:12 am

    Shed – ”But if its a dream i dont want to wake up.. azlan. Whats ur cmment on this my friend.”

    I’ll believe it when it happens.

    Like I’ve said before, the main problem with the class is the state of the hulls and other systems – I didn’t pick this off the net or from gossip but from a number of people in the service, including 2 who have actual 1st hand experience serving on them. Given the age of the class [almost 2 1/2 decades] conducting a full SLEP on it is silly as the cash could be better spent on the Lekius and Kedah!!

    Shed – ”I surely hope that the plan (upgrade) 4 the laksmana will come to fruition.”

    A feasibility study was previously done and it was decided that spending a lot of cash wasn’t worth it; which is what the RMN Chief previously meant when he said they would be armed only with guns. Not only does all the sexy stuff [missiles, sonar, directors, ESM] has to be replaced but internal stuff as well [cabling, ventilation, power supply], then we also have to look at the gearbox and generators [can we still use them or do we have to buy new?] – add all that up and we must as well buy a new ship!!

    The main concern before any SLEP will be checking the hulls for structural integrity. 2 have had their CMS upgraded and have been fitted with a new active jammer. I know people are all gung-ho about upgrading the Laksamana but the fact remains that the class has badly deteriorated and cash spent must be seen in relation to the age of the ships and whether there is any point to do so.

    Shed – ”This is Malaysia. The land where everything is boleh. Yes the lekiu’s were the rmn main surface combatants. But can the same be said once the lcs becomes online? ”

    The first LCS is expected to enter sevice 2019 the earliest and the Seawolf on the Kedah will time expire before that. The RMN and the government for that matter will never allow a principal asset to degrade [especially when there’s nothing else] – look at how no expense has been spared to ensure both SSKs are in good condition and look how despite tightening budgets, how the needed cash has been allocated to support the MKMs and ‘D’s.

    Shed – ”Making thing worst if the gov decides that it is not economical to upgrade the vessels eventhough the oem is still around to support 4 the upcoming SLEP. ”

    By this line of reasoning it might be decided that its pointless spending tonnes of cash on 25 year old corvettes that the RMN never wanted and is not happy with [which will remain unchanged despite any SLEP] – apart from the seakeeping, the directors on the Laksamanas were never very ‘discerning’ if that’s the right word.

    Shed – ”that a further 2 laksmana to add to the 2 previous unit were in the wish list of the rmn. ”

    There were 2 with landing decks and 2 Lupos; all were languishing at La Spezia. The 2 Assad’s with landing decks were NEVER on the RMN’s wish list and NEITHER were the 4 we have now. Mahathir insisted on the deal against the wishes of the then RMN Chief who recommended against buying them.

    Way before we bought the Laksamanas we first announced we were buying the Lupos. The uncompleted Argentine MEKOs was the idea of Amin Shah and died a natural death. BTW, the official reason given to buying the class was because of delivery delats with the Leku class.

    Shed – ”4 its time the laksmana was the most modern vessel in the rmn before the arrival of the lekius.”

    Not quite true. The Laksamanas were delivered with 1980’s systems that were not operating optimally. Eventhough the Kasturi class entered service way before and also had 1980’s systems; the DA-08 for one was way superior to the RAN-12 in terms of range and resolution and its fire directors coud do what it was supposed to do. People tend to overlook the fact that the Laksamana class was fitted out in line with Iraqi navy operational requirements…..

    Shed – ” I tought it was a capability based acquisition.”

    The RMN’s priority at that time was a pair of SSKs and a replacement for the Vospers.
    shed says:
    April 21, 2015 at 7:53 pm

    I surely hope that the plan (upgrade) 4 the laksmana will come to fruition. Hate to see a dumbed down version of them. I was born in a time when the internet hasnt reach the masses. I’ve once read (in 1995 if i was not mistaken) that a further 2 laksmana to add to the 2 previous unit were in the wish list of the rmn. And along with that 2 second hand meko 14o of the argentine navy (amazing isnt it). The army wanted mlrs units and the airforce… i forget about the airforce.

    4 its time the laksmana was the most modern vessel in the rmn before the arrival of the lekius. It was the first time that the rmn poseses a true 3 dimensional capability (not taking account the seacat and the limbo launchers. May uncle served on the rahmat). Thats why i failed to noticed why tun m had anything to do with the purchase. I tought it was a capability based acquisition. Its not like we had something to gain by going italian. Sorry marhalim and azlan. Im not going political or trying to defend the old man or something here. Dont get me wrong.. maybe u guys can elaborate o the matter.

    If the rmn want to standardize their ssm arsenal im going 4 the exocet or the nsm. But they cant have both… or can they?
    … says:
    April 21, 2015 at 5:50 pm

    So it seems that they are really going to have a full tilt slep programme for the laksamanas…


    That’s the plan it seems but it will all depends on funding
    shed says:
    April 21, 2015 at 3:48 pm


    Where did u get that from? Janes? Ok. I must be dreaming. But if its a dream i dont want to wake up.. azlan. Whats ur cmment on this my friend.
    D.W says:
    April 21, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    News of the Laksamana upgrades.

    “Malaysia reveals plans for Laksamana-class corvette upgrades”

    “The Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) has given further details of the proposed service life extension programme (SLEP) for its Laksamana (ASSAD)-class corvettes.

    The plans, which include a replacement of the ships’ surface-to-surface missile launchers and fire-control radar, were outlined by Commander Badarudin Bin Taha, a staff officer from the RMN’s plans development division, during the fifth annual OPVs & Corvettes Asia Pacific conference in Singapore.

    Other components of the SLEP include replacing the ships’ active search and navigation radar, heavy machine guns, combat management system, electronic support measures and integrated bridge and platform management systems. Also being considered for upgrade are the vessels’ 105 mm chaff launchers and identification friend-or-foe interrogator.”

    shed says:
    April 21, 2015 at 12:41 pm


    This is Malaysia. The land where everything is boleh. Yes the lekiu’s were the rmn main surface combatants. But can the same be said once the lcs becomes online? The lcs is bigger and more sofistikated and u know what happens to old toys in Malaysia. Just look at the F5s.

    Yes the circumstance surrounding the lekiu and the laksmana is quit different. With the ‘current threat’ scenario being played by the gov it is not impossible 4 the lekius to be downgraded. Making thing worst if the gov decides that it is not economical to upgrade the vessels eventhough the oem is still around to support 4 the upcoming SLEP. Money is tight nowadays.. got to save more.

    On a different note ive read an article regarding the mrca today. The def minister said that mrca program will be based on 3 different aspects.

    A. Threat scenario (if we are facing a non state aggressor that we have no need 4 fighters)
    B. Fulus
    C. The rakyat perception regarding the program

    Hmmmm… have a seat guys. Lets wait this one out. Damn politician. That why i hate politics. I seems logical 4 the time but…
    Azlan says:
    April 21, 2015 at 8:00 am

    nimitz – ”Anything can happen (including changing from FFG to PV), I could wait it out.”

    All due respect but this is nonsense. The Lekius are the RMN’s principal combatants and their capabilities will not be allowed to degrade.

    Shed – ”i think we both dont want a repeat of the laksmana.”

    It goes without saying that no one does but the circumstances with the Laksamana class are wholly different. For one, it has been decided that only minimal upgrades will be performed as doing more than that is not justified given the age of the class and the condition of its hull. There is also a lot more work to be done on the Laksamana as many systems, are no longer operable due to old age or because their OEMs no longer support them.
    nimitz says:
    April 20, 2015 at 9:12 pm

    Yeah Lekiu Mid Life Refit when we look into its systems, worthy a long discussion. Anything can happen (including changing from FFG to PV), I could wait it out.
    shed says:
    April 19, 2015 at 9:33 pm


    I was asking the same thing.. i think we both dont want a repeat of the laksmana.
    No matter whats the hardware end up being slaped onto it just dont turn it into a patrol boat. Thats the whole point of me asking about the nsm.. but then people still think im try to force… ahhh forget about it.


    If thats the case then i think we have to wait 4 the slep then. Just dont let them seat idle 4 7 years like the kasturi did…
    shed says:
    April 19, 2015 at 9:06 pm


    What? Is it my tone? The way that i talk that offended u? Then im sorry. I oppologize 4 that.

    In my defend i never impose my views on others. I was simply asking and u have the right to answer it or not. If asking and stating my opinion was forcing my way on others than 99pcnt of the bloggers here did the same. And u find no fault with that.

    U accused me of supporting the c28 program which i did not. I supported the superbug and the grippen like many of them did.

    Yes i had my ‘fights’ with azlan and maybe even marhalim but that dont mean that i think that they were wrong or in ur words ‘dont understand what malaysian defence is all about’. i respect what they had to say no matter what the subject.

    I simply dont want to go into Malaysian politics and start pointing fingers at others. if u want to than by all means go ahead. Btw ive noticed ur cmment on corruption… i was repeating the same point that i have said earlier.
    Azlan says:
    April 19, 2015 at 4:55 pm


    Depends on what goes on the Lekiu but in all likelihood both BAE Systems and Thales will be involved; irrespective of which is selected to be the systems integrator. If NAUTIS is retained then obviously the RMN will need to work with BAE Systems. Same goes if NSM is selected and NAUTIS is retained; BAE Systems will have to write the needed software and provide certification. If the DA-08 is retained help will also be needed from Thales. We can safely say that either MICA or Sea Captor will replace Sea Wolf: ideally it will be MICA.
    AM says:
    April 19, 2015 at 4:14 pm


    You obviously did not read my comment that talking about corruption alone is narrow minded.

    It is you who does not have an understanding of Malaysian defence and wants to impose your ideas as to what we should go. Most often, those ideas are related to gear. I would advise you to participate on plenty of other forums talking about gear, you can learn much more there. You have such a dismissive attitude to discussing Malaysian defence politics- and I object to anybody who wants to dismiss one of the few precious sites to discuss it.

    In before “I was joking, of course I know.” It is your favourite response when someone points out your mistake.
    nimitz says:
    April 19, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    By the time Lekiu going for Mid Life Refit (2020?) are TLDM going to stick with BAE (supplier of Lekiu) or pick up Thales (main-con for Kasturi SLEP). From the selection of contractor, we can predict which way the refit will go. Are they going to slap Gowind type armament or put in newer model of the existing armament or put nothing after oldies taken out.
    shed says:
    April 19, 2015 at 9:54 am


    Everyone knows about that. Tactics and doctrins? Yes please. International politics? Yes please. Domestic politics? Party and individual bashing? Im right ur wrong policy? corruption alegation here and there. Haaaah. We’re so tired of that. If u remember marhalim even went to the extant or blocking a comment on jho low put forth by one of the readers. And marhalim ends up being accused of living in a cave.
    AM says:
    April 19, 2015 at 12:42 am

    Equipment is a very narrow part of defence, which includes everything from tactics to politics. But to say that every bad thing comes from corruption is equally narrow minded. Ultimately we are here to improve our understanding of our country’s defence, not just talk about gear. There are plenty of sites to cater for that.
    shed says:
    April 18, 2015 at 7:29 pm

    On another note i think people tend to stick with gear centric issues to avoid making political and ‘corruption’ base comments. Marhalim blogs is a defense base blog. I thank him 4 that.

    there are many different sites to cater for those
    shed says:
    April 18, 2015 at 7:20 pm


    I dont know the actual figures marhalim. But after taking into account all the live fire exercise been done through out years it is safe to say that the rmn is left with around 3o missile’s. Is it more economical to relife and restock the existing type or missile or move on to another type. Yes mbda is not known 4 cheap products and support. The matter have been brought to the parliment buy one of our mp’s. I not doubting the rmn. But like azlan said no actual figures have came out on the actual cost of the nsm. Let alone trying to integrate rate them with the jebat’s (if the rmn chooses so)..

    of course it will be cheaper to extend their service life but one must take into account how long the ships itself will be in service. Any how I have no idea whether the NSM will become the new standard SSM for the navy. They might revert back to Exocet. As for the cost for support I believe it’s mainly related to the Jernas. Its more maintenance extensive as the missile is not placed inside it’s own launch tube unlike the Exocet and Sea Wolf. Storage and handling is also simpler for the two missiles as they are kept in their same launch tubes in the armoury. Even the British Army find it difficult support the Rapier in the field as they need to treat missiles gently which of course are difficult to do outside the camp. That’s why the Rapier replacement used the wooden missile concept no one wants to repeat the Rapier experience!
    shed says:
    April 18, 2015 at 2:55 pm


    Thats the issue. The jebat’s are nearing the time 4 SLEP while the kasturi’s exocets are nearing the end of their shelf lives. How many of these missile is in our inventory? Will it be replaced? Relife? Or what? whats the cost to intergrate the nsm with the nautis or even the coys. If the cost ends up being too big then will these vessels end up the same as the laksmana’s? When we end up just having 6 main surface combattant will the same blame game be replayed?

    I dont the know the exact numbers, SIPRI data says we bought 50 Block 2 Exocets in two batches, 20 for Lekiu class back in 1993 and another 30 in 2003=2005 for the Kasturi class. Yes RMN is looking to replenish its missile stocks under RMK11, numbers and types are unknown.
    I have no idea on the integration cost, as Nautis is an older CMS I believed it might need software and hardware upgrades to be integrated with newer missiles and I believed this is not limited to the Exocets.
    I believed modern CMS will not have any issues with the integration of new missiles either SAMs or SSMs as they will be mostly plug and play type
    shed says:
    April 18, 2015 at 12:54 pm


    Pheww.. for a while i thought that u were talking about me there. But then i never went 4 the idea of getting the c28. Neither of any exotic mrca type ‘new’ to the rmaf. The grippen? Still got the ge engine and a large amount of american hardware there.

    The question still needs to be answered. When the mm4o block II on the jebat and kasturi goes out does we in bring in the nsm for it or not?

    No information yet on what will be the missiles for the Lekiu class in the near future
    AM says:
    April 18, 2015 at 11:53 am


    If you allow me a short diversion on the topic, people treat the NSM differently because the navy was choosing between two European missiles: Exocet and NSM.

    In the case of the MRCA, American options (F-18E and F-16) are on the table. This introduced a distrust of America that you can see among some readers here and on Malaysian news sites. Unfortunately, there is a perception that grows from Mahathir’s disparaging remarks on the F-18 (which he made to deflect criticism of his MiG-29 purchase). Concurrently there is a perception that Russia will supply gear that is cheap, rugged and without political conditions. Note that if this was true, customers would be willing to pay more for Russian gear than American gear.

    Over time I have also gained an insight into the demographics of our fellow readers. Some belong to a generation that has waited for and is happy to see China’s rise, which results in their advocating the JF-17 as our MRCA. I disagree as I would not like our readiness to be secondary to this sentiment.
    AM says:
    April 18, 2015 at 12:04 am

    Marhalim, participation here is very gear centric and I have always understood this.

    What I don’t understand is the psychology which sways the opinions on your different articles. For example, most people are advocating that we get the most sophisticated missile. Although the NSM is advanced, they still have their doubts because of the small warhead.

    Move along to the C-28A corvettes and the MRCA. Here, most people are convinced that the cheaper Chinese alternatives can perform as well as the Western options.

    There is something very interesting in your topics that elicits different behavioral responses. One person was even concerned about the modest logistical burden of introducing the new NSM. Yet, he was quite comfortable supporting exotic new corvettes and MRCA. In all seriousness, a social scientist would be very intrigued.

    Yes I had noted that too. Anything on MRCA never failed to elicit high reader response while the one about the Auditor General Report did not at all. It must be noted that I prefer gear centric topics as I tried to avoid operational issues as much as possible due to various issues.
    Azlan says:
    April 17, 2015 at 3:03 pm


    After the cockup with the Kedahs, which was mostly Amin Shah’s fault but for which the Germans also played a part, there was little chance of the German Naval Group getting the LCS contract. And whether the IP rights bought for the Kedahs could have covered the design offered for the LCS; who knows?
    Azlan says:
    April 17, 2015 at 2:55 pm


    The first design offered for the LCS was from Thyssen. The one I mentioned earlier; it was shown at DSA. It had a stack, a 16 cell VLS and was derived from the MEKO-A100. With regards to the stack or lack of it; we have not experienced the same problems the SAN did but parts of the ship gets covered in soot. A friend of mine who was a ship CO said he would always avoid coming alongside a Kedah if it was belching smoke as his ship would also be covered in soot! The German Naval Group did play a part after a new management took over the Naval Dockyard; we couldn’t have done it otherwise.

    Our MM-40s are still good to go for 3-4 years more at least. We can forget about arming the Kedah class for the time being as the RMN would rather the cash be used for the Lekiu SLEP.
    shed says:
    April 17, 2015 at 9:07 am


    I meant the improve kedah design submited by bns. With the conventional smokestack, vls and so on. What happen to that? I tought they had bought rights for the desgn. Did the oem played any major part in finishing the staled kedah project?

    Thats the problem. The current ‘strikers’ in the rmn is the jebat and the kasturi class. How much of the block II is still operational. When their ssm live expires are they going to share the same fate of the laksmana’s or will they be equip with the nsm too?
    Azlan says:
    April 16, 2015 at 11:05 pm

    The NSM’s smaller warhead is compensated by its ability to hit specific parts of the intended target. Together with that, from an RMN perspective the size of the warhead is less of a concern as the RMN is unlikely to find itself firing at cruisers, let alone a carrier (let’s not get ahead of ourselves here). A damaged ship, to the extent that it can’t remain on station and has to return to base, is just as good as a sunk ship.
    Azlan says:
    April 16, 2015 at 9:59 pm


    With regards to NSM and logistics, I wouldn’t be so concerned. Unlike with aircraft, vehicles or ships, we don’t have to stock large quantities of different parts and there are no consumables that often need replacing. Apart from investing in testing equipment (a one time cost) there is not much else support stuff to buy or even to do, apart from periodic inspections/tests on the missiles and preventive maintenance and checks on the launchers.

    What would be silly is if we revert back to Exocet for the South Korean corvettes as logic dictates they also be armed with NSM. For the Lekiu and Kasturi the same applies but it all depends on the level and costs of integration to NAUTIS and COSYS. At the end of the day going for NSM was a RMN decision and prior to making that decision, the RMN would have looked at the pros and cons. Obviously the RMN had a good reason to drop Exocet in favour of NSM.
    tomahawk says:
    April 16, 2015 at 9:24 pm


    The main different between NSM and improve harpoon and exocet is image recognition at end stage. Enemy need different kind of countermeasure like laser DIRCM and jamming which impact missile circuit. Most other stuff like you say already available on improved harpoon and exocet.

    Iimage recognition is nothing new. Exocet replacement, MBDA Perseus and harpoon replacement, LRASM, will have image recognition together with other sensor like radar or what you call sensor for detecting radar emision. So the countermeasure against image recognition will grow especially with laser CIWS become common after 2020.

    So the challenge for NSM in future is whether it can depend on image recognition only becuz if tat fail there is no other guidance. The other challenge is the small NSM warhead. It warhead even smaller than Exocet. USN is looking at it to equip LCS ship and not destroyer and krusier which will carry LRASM missile with warhead 4 to 5 times the size of NSM warhead.

    If you ask me, I not surprise if RMN will go for another missile in future as a just in case thing and for big ship like carrier.

    NSM will be widely use to the contrary. Many F35 nation will be buying air lunched NSM call JSM.
    Azlan says:
    April 16, 2015 at 9:20 pm


    Like I said, if we had stuck to the programme we could have progressively increased the capability of successive batches and in due time they not only would have replaced the Vospers but also the 14 FACs. Operating costs would have been bearable as the NGOPVs are not too large and we would have had economics of scale, plus an adequate shore support infrastructure and a reduced logistical footprint from operating a common design.
    On paper the 27 figure looks overly ambitious but it was based on our operational needs and to ensure we had adequate number of hulls.

    The Gowind is a decent ship; typical of current generation designs on offer: minimal deck space, “stealthy” features (which like missile range people are so fond off), modularity and high levels of automation. Would have made no difference what we chose as what’s more important is what we put in the ship. Logically, we did the right thing going with DCNS as we already have a relationship with them. Thyssen took over from HDW in the German Naval Group and offered us a larger MEKO-A100 with a stack and VLS but the Germans had as much chance of winning the contract as MBDA has selling ASTER 30 to Albania.
    shed says:
    April 16, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    Bro 8.35pm

    Thats not newla bro. Most of the current ssm have that capability. Even mbda is claiming some sort of reduce detection @ stealth, terrain avoidance and ect with their current line of exocets.. again. Im not against the type (nsm) persay but its more a matter of logistics.
    shed says:
    April 16, 2015 at 4:59 pm


    Yes i know that even with 27 hulls its not going to be enough to cover the entire EEZ and teritorial waters. Im more concern about the type, size, armament and most importanly the cost of purchasing and maintaining such a vessel. Even 4 a dumbed down corvette.

    Yes. Things went down the drain. Instead of evolving the design to suit our needs the RMN had to choose another desgn that they arent familiar with. Im not a fan of the gowind and never will be. BNS had submited a desgn that look much like the kedah with a few improvement. What happen to that?
    Azlan says:
    April 16, 2015 at 2:25 pm


    Given the size of our EEZ , the length of our coastline and the need to ensure access to international shipping lanes; 27 is not a lot of ships.
    And this is especially true when we factor in that at any one time “x” number of ships would be in dry dock, “X” would be undergoing routine maintenance, “x” would be getting ready to put to sea and “x” would be at sea. With 27 ships, we wouldn’t have been too overstretched and would have much less headaches planning deployment cycles. The 16 year period was intended to lessen the impact on the economy and the RMN’s manpower and shore infrastructure limitations.

    The neighbours wouldn’t have been rattled as these were ships of light displacement, lightly armed, intended for not too serious duties and wouldn’t have improved our power protection capabilities. Our neighbours will get rattled if the day ever comes when we have a sound assessment of our defences needs. Short of us buying IRBMs or cruise missiles, they won’t bother too much with what we buy and the quantity; as long as it’s not in excess of our actual needs.

    If things hadn’t gone sour with the Germans we could have had a common design that could have been progressively improved on. We also would have established a long term strategic relationship with a foreign yard and over time the local content would have increased and we would actually have benefited. Instead, things went ratshit with the German Naval Group; the RMN and taxpayer didn’t get what they paid for and we are back to square one, this time with another yard.
    AM says:
    April 16, 2015 at 10:09 am


    I am referring to the LCS. The wiki page says “Boustead Naval Shipyard has also announced that there has been extra space allocated on the deck of the ship for more VLS cells.”

    However I am looking for reports to confirm this view.

    shed says:
    April 16, 2015 at 8:23 am


    Even if the economy was that good sustaining a fleet of 27 corvette size vessel will be huge enough that it could drain the budget 4 other branches of the MAF. And surely the opv wasnt the only thing on the RMN wish list at that time. 4 me it was an imposibilaty from the start. We are not a nation of unlimited wealth and power. Let alone the determination. Everything must be tone down as not to offend the neighbours or even the ‘rakyat’ who sees anything related to defense as just a waste of money.

    The prices of arms realy went up since the last time i check. The flying price of and f 16 was a measly 3 mil usd when it first flew. But look at it now. Btw who determine this prices? Gila punya harga.
    Azlan says:
    April 15, 2015 at 11:12 pm


    There is simply no top or below deck space to mount a VLS. This is what I’ve heard from people in the service and from my walk around on KD Kelantan – thankfully it wasn’t during an Open or public day. At best we can hope for is a non-deck penetrating system like RAM in the “B”.


    The requirement for 27 ships over a 16 year period was based at a time when the economy had healthier growth rates. As it was projected over a 16 year period, finding the needed manpower was not an issue. There was also a reason why it was spread over 16 years and it wasn’t solely due to Naval Dockyard’s production capacity.

    As for the price of the Exocet, when we first bought the MM-38 we paid the equivalent of RM200.000 (Aerospatiale was smart and asked for USD not French Francs). After 1982, thanks to the Argentines putting their SM-39s and MM-38s (fired from shore) to good use, prices went up considerably. Even a main gun with the needed control and re-loading equipment can cost several million Euro each! And that’s without fire directors or any needed integration.
    … says:
    April 15, 2015 at 8:35 pm

    @ shed

    You really don’t know how a modern missile work do you? FYI the nsm does not fly in a straight predictable trajectory like old tech missiles like exocet. NSM is able to fly over and around landmasses (around islands for example), travel in sea skim mode, and then make random manoeuvres in the terminal phase, making it harder to stop by enemy countermeasures.

    Yes it is not secret, but compared to about 30 countries that uses exocet, including most navies in South east Asia, the nsm currently only used by 2 navies, and in future only Malaysia in South east Asia. That is an advantage, for a few years at least as other navies doeas not know exactly how it works, unlike exocet, which if they use it themselves, of course they intimately know its strength and weaknesses…
    Shed says:
    April 15, 2015 at 4:54 pm


    Im not distrusting the navy in anyway.. Dont get me wrong. But sometimes the so called ‘experts’ baffles me.. Not so long ago the RMN put forth a procurement plan for 27 medium sized patrol vessel @ opv. Realy? 27 corvette type vessels for a navy the size and operating budget of the RMN?? Is it even possible? Yes we need the numbers but the specification to me doesnt make any sense.. Let alone the cost. The PSCND saga was a blessing in disguise 4 me.. Not 4 the millions that we “lost” but 4 commen sense to prevail. But lets talk about that later.
    AM says:
    April 15, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    According to wikipedia, BNS says there is space on the deck for more VLS cells.

    No info on how old this news is or the source. Can anyone confirm?
    Tomahawk says:
    April 15, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    I think nsm is good for lotiral fight for small and medium ship with small warhead. So i think rmn is shown fokus on mission set so a lot of thinking has gone into this. I initially tot rmn will wait for supersonic mbda perseus or US harpoon replacement Lrasm missile.imho most harpoon nation will buy lrasm or perseus.
    nalzar73 says:
    April 15, 2015 at 10:31 am

    Let the navy as the real user of the SSM decides what they want to buy. Because they know better than we all what equipments to use to defend our country. Trust them.
    Shed says:
    April 15, 2015 at 9:43 am


    I have to agree with u. The cost to deal with MBDA is quite ridiculous. The exocet seems to cost more then the harpoons or any other current SSM on the market. But im looking it in a logistical sense. Yes the RMN MM40 block II were relife once. But looking back at the MM38 record that was in service 4 almost 40 years why cant the the same be done to the blok II. Heck even the French Navy block III is not brand new either. They were rebuild from the block II frame. But everything depends on the current number of SSM in the RMN inventory. Is the Jebat and Kasturi class going to equip with the NSM once the exocet goes kaput???

    Bro 12.12am

    Dont get me wrong bro. Norway will not going to be the sole operator of the NSM. Hence the point of its “secrecy” is not valid. Unless the missile can change it flight path like an insect then in theory it can still be countered. Like our friend azlan said “Its more of concern to me is how we employ it and whether we improve our level of networking to be able to use the missile to its full ability”.
    Azlan says:
    April 15, 2015 at 1:55 am

    shed – ” What makes the nsm so ‘special’ except 4 its marketing brochure? It it cheaper? I thnk not.”

    Until we have actual figures at hand, anything regards to price is at best, speculative. However, the word circulating around the industry is that NSM is not only cheaper to buy but is also cheaper to support and we do know that getting product support from a company as large as MBDA is not cheap, as anyone who has inside knowledge of our Jernas will attest.

    As for how difficult it is to counter Exocet or for any missile for that matter, it depends less on the missile but on other factors, like how early is the missile detected, at what range will it be engaged by a target’s defences, whether there is an active jammer or IR decoys, a well as other soft kill options. There is no ‘best’ or ‘ideal’ missile, just what an particular customer decides best suits his budget and operational requirements. It also goes without saying, that there will be certain areas where a particular missile has an advantage over another and vice versa.

    Personally I couldn’t care less whether NSM, Exocet, Otomat, Harpoon or RBS 15 goes on the LCS [I was never into the ‘A’ versus ‘B’ thing as its pointless]. More of concern to me is how we employ it and whether we improve our level of networking to be able to use the missile to its full ability.
    … says:
    April 15, 2015 at 12:13 am

    Ahhh replying to wrong person

    I meant

    @ shed
    … says:
    April 15, 2015 at 12:12 am

    @ romeo

    “If thats the case then same can be said about the harpoon’ yakhont or any other ssm operated by more than 1 nation @ country”

    Yes, that is one of the reasons that tldm wants the nsm. It is new, not many people know how it performs, how it flies, how it hits the target, how can it be spoofed etc etc…

    The exocet is like watching a favourite movie. You know what to expect, what is the catch line etc etc… Countering any missile is not easy, but methods, procedures to counter the exocet are widely known by most navies (by avoidance tactics, jamming, decoys, flight path predicting algorithms for close-in guns and missiles etc etc) and can be practiced. The nsm is mostly an unknown system and would be an advantage for the gowinds at least for the 1st decade of its service.
    shed says:
    April 14, 2015 at 9:10 pm

    Bro 12.15pm

    If thats the case then same can be said about the harpoon’ yakhont or any other ssm operated by more than 1 nation @ country. Is it so easy to counter the current version of the exocet? What makes the nsm so ‘special’ except 4 its marketing brochure? It it cheaper? I thnk not.
    Azlan says:
    April 14, 2015 at 9:07 pm


    Range never was and is not a panacea which I’m sure you’re aware of since you don’t buy everything said on OEM brochures. On the other hand I’m not saying that range doesn’t have a utility but there is no point having a missile with a 250km range if your radar can only go as far as 150km and it’s no point having a missile with a 250km range if you have no OTHT assets and if you are mainly operating in the confined littorals where engagement and detection ranges tend to be shorter.

    NSM incorporates newer technologies when compared to the MM-40: this is a fact although I’m not claiming one is better than the other. Obviously the RMN had good reason to insist on NSM and obviously the USN had good reason to evaluate it for its LCS. If NSM was technologically immature or was unsound; the USN wouldn’t have take the time and effort to evaluate it. Also, MBDA charges an arm and leg for spares and product support.

    Indeed there are more Exocet users than NSM but Exocet (in various forms) has been around way longer and MBDA is a more established company than Kongsberg with more established ties and a wider marketing/sales network. To repeat, I’m not saying that Exocet is better than NSM or vice versa but that going for NSM may not necessarily be a bad choice. No doubt there will be areas in which Exocet does better but the same can be said of NSM: there is no perfect solution. For me, just like with our MRCA requirement (people tend to focus more on the platform), it’s not the actual hardware that is of concern but the software…………. At the end of the day whether we buy NSM, Exocet or Otomat is immaterial, what makes the difference is how we employ it and the systems we employ it with to bring out the best of its capabilities…..
    … says:
    April 14, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    @ romeo

    The problem with exocets is…

    Everybody got them.

    Everyone knows its strength and weaknesses. Tactics and procedures to counter the exocet is widely known.

    With the new nsm, it brings a new dimension to those who have to face the gowind frigates on the high seas, making it a more lethal adversary compared to being armed with exocets.
    shed says:
    April 14, 2015 at 11:36 am

    I have to say. Im voting 4 the exocet this time. Nsm. Lighter warhead. Still subsonic. Stealthy? Realy? IR terminal homing. Boxy louncher. But still the RMN want it so let it be.. but if thing ever goes bad theres no one left to blame…
    AM says:
    April 14, 2015 at 9:30 am


    What you say does not often happen in the arms world. More often, manufacturers are desperate to secure orders. So, buying from diverse suppliers is not to our advantage. Especially when we are buying small quantities of everything- we hurt ourselves more than them.
    Romeo says:
    April 14, 2015 at 8:28 am

    @ azlan
    I had do my research and I have to agree to disagree with you.
    If you say nsm is newer then the question is how new is nsm? Exo III initial official production is in 2008 for french navy and nsm initial official production is in 2007 for norwegian navy. Looks to me both tech belong in the same era and produced by well known company. Actually, new missile are developed to have supersonic even hypersonic speed to avoid interception and give bigger impact. NSM or exo III still a subsonic missile.

    Both are using new material. NSM is using composit material that give us a clue nsm is lighter. Kongsberg claim it is stealthy, but that will be a big question isnt it? like you said, dont take the written stuff on brochure at face value.

    Lets check the reality, exo III is more popular and widely used. So, it give us an idea that more navy “believe” to exo III than nsm.

    About operational range and effective range, I hope you are not trying to say that longer operational range have less effective range.
    Lee Yoke Meng says:
    April 13, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    Its good to diversify our purchase once a while to keep the producers in check. If they know we are loyal to one only price will be held tight. next time to capture back the market they will have to go easy on the price
    Azlan says:
    April 13, 2015 at 7:46 pm


    Do some research. The NSM is a much newer missile, is made from different materials and in the terminal phase is IR guided. Being a newer missile, it also incorporates stuff not on the MM-40.

    As for range don’t take stuff written on brochures at face value and understand that not only is there a difference between “maximum range” and “maximum effective range” but that the ability of any missile to take long range shots is dependent on other factors.
    SavvyKL says:
    April 13, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Hopefully use CAMM for SAM.

    LCS? Its likely VL MICA
    Romeo says:
    April 13, 2015 at 8:10 am

    I dont know why you said there is a world difference beetwen NSM and exocet. While both share almost the same specifications and ability. I think RBS 15 mk3 is better, it has longer operational range to 250 km while NSM and exocet III only 180-190 km.

    Ok, forget about JSM since it is an air launched missile.
    kerberosWXIV says:
    April 13, 2015 at 4:06 am

    So it could be assume that the NSM will also be equipping the Kedah class when RMN come around to that?

    AFAIK No
    Azlan says:
    April 12, 2015 at 7:23 pm


    Actually, there is a world of difference between NSM and Exocet.

    JSM for the moment is being integrated to the F-35. Nobody is taking the trouble to integrate it to legacy Hornets.
    Nimitz says:
    April 12, 2015 at 6:48 pm

    JSM is related to NSM which is tightly tied to F35 JSF. Furthermore JSM is not yet fielded unlike NSM and currently its development is geared towards and airborne missile.

    NSM is touted as 5-Gen Anti Ship Missile. Taking a look at guidance mode, it have more ways in guidance compared to Exocet. I think TLDM have grabbed a “mini Tomahawk” in the form of NSM and enter the realm of standoff land attack previously available only to TUDM. Not only TLDM can hit a ship, later they can hit land facilities too. Price wise, IMHO NSM is heftier than Exocet due to extra guidance mode, but I could be wrong.

    Exocet Block 3 can also hit land target. I believed this is more than technology…
    Romeo says:
    April 12, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    There is no different beetwen NSM or exocet, the later is more popular and widely used. Should take JSM to upgrade fire power.
    shed says:
    April 12, 2015 at 8:43 am

    IMO the RMN will extend the lives of the MM 4O block 2 the same way they did with the MM 38. Norwegian missile on french ships? Isnt this another attempt at ‘rojak’ equipment which so many of us is so against (im not one of them)? Time to ‘learn’ new things? The same way we learn with the migs and the sukhoi? If things turn out bad who will get the blame this time?

    They already did that…
    Me says:
    April 11, 2015 at 9:59 pm

    Exocet is not going away. It is interesting in the justification.
    Azlan says:
    April 11, 2015 at 6:01 pm

    The air launched version of NSM is currently under development for use on the F-35 and is too large for Super Lynx. MBDA is offering Sea Venom as a Sea Skua replacement; IR guided.
    Lkick says:
    April 11, 2015 at 5:14 pm

    Is good to know that at last we chose NSM, some kind of relief for military enthusiast like us… But if the SAM is vL mica…. To me range of mica is too short…even though with the capability of fire and forget…. At least we need the coverage range of 50km and above.
    Nimitz says:
    April 11, 2015 at 12:14 am

    “Actually…”? Haa Marhalim you have something to say about NSM vs Exocet eh?

    NSM does have air launched version?if it does then it could replace Sea Skua assuming NSM within Lynx’s MTOW. Not aware that Sea Skua is close to expiring. Sea Wolf replacement could be Mica or CAMM. Let’scross the bridge when we arrive at the bridge.

    No I was talking about something else…
    mofaz says:
    April 10, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    The Royal Navy is replacing their Sea Wolf with MBDA Sea Ceptor , no need to modify the launcher just swap places .
    zero1contact says:
    April 10, 2015 at 10:42 pm

    “Because the vibration eats into the life of missiles; that’s why we have dummy Sidewinder and other rounds.” — i suggest it is nt necessary to reveal or exposed such info .eh?

    Every one knows this lah, its not a super secret thing
    man ucoh says:
    April 10, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    It seems that RMN has shifted to Scandinavia n missile technology and could assess its effectiveness later. I think Malaysia is the first in the region using this missile armament.
    Azlan says:
    April 10, 2015 at 7:19 pm


    If indeed missiles didn’t expire and was a scheme by the OEMs to make money; many, many people would very happy. The first to go is usually the circuitry, followed by the explosives. We did a good job extending the lives of our MM-38s, first at the Naval Dockyard and then at Pakistan. Ever wondered why we hardly see our fighters with live missiles? Because the vibration eats into the life of missiles; that’s why we have dummy Sidewinder and other rounds. In our climate humidity also plays a part. How long missiles last also depends on how they are stored. Same goes with small arms and arty ammo.

    The NSM order is a coup for Konsgberg but a blow for MBDA; given that we have been an Exocet operator for close to 40 years. Next we have to worry about Sea Wolf and Sea Skua; both will time expire in the next 2-3 years.

    nimitz says:
    April 10, 2015 at 4:43 pm

    ASM puzzle no more. We wait for confirmation on the brand of SAM and torpedo.
    mofaz says:
    April 10, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    How long is a typical missile life expectancy ? Is it the same for missiles from western manufacturer and their Russian counterparts ? This explains a lot regarding our weapon purchase policy especially for missiles.

    Around 10 years for missiles on ships and on the ground. Much shorter for those on planes.
    bigfoot says:
    April 10, 2015 at 11:11 am

    Aahh… today’s good news and let’s wait for more surprises from RMN
    clubM says:
    April 10, 2015 at 9:40 am

    Before exocet expired maybe rmn can demonstrate a live firing party to test the accuracy and range of the missile…

    With rmn real frigate as target perhaps to test the anti missile weapon?

    Or buy the china/russian ciws and try their accuracy so that if its good then we can use it in the future.

    No one use real ships for targets. Every year they do missile firings.
    MILSPEC says:
    April 10, 2015 at 8:47 am

    Hey, at least we got something new for our ship… With NSM, we could gain something out of it…
    mofaz says:
    April 10, 2015 at 8:31 am

    Question ..why do missiles have expiry date ? The electronics parts have life expiry date ? The explosive material “masuk angin” ? The propulsion material assuming solid fueled becomes inert ? The missile expiry sounds more like manufacturer money spinning scheme !

    Nothing in life is permanent not even man made things. Anyhow, how many things you or your father bought in the 80s or 90s are still usable? Missiles are weapons, they need to be in their optimum condition to be of any value, otherwise they are just deadweight.
    iwann11 says:
    April 10, 2015 at 6:23 am

    So does it benefit for first time user like us, I mean in terms of logistic management since we were familiar with Exocet missile

    Not really but there is always time to learn new things.
    clubM says:
    April 10, 2015 at 5:37 am

    lightning97 says:
    April 10, 2015 at 12:30 am

    I thought the government will press on the Exocet Block III. Nice compromise. At least we get the NSMs.
    Kaseem says:
    April 9, 2015 at 10:58 pm

    Buying French frigate without exocet in package? I thought it is economical to simplified our missile arsenal.

    Not really as most of the Exocets apart from those on the submarines will be time expired by the time the NSM comes on line

  2. The person commenting above is not me. Please use another name.

    I trashed it. That’s what happened when I approved comments on the phone. I will be more careful next time around.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.