More Details of Damen MPSS

A CGI of two versions of the MPSS, one a drone mothership and the other an amphibious support vessel equipped with a well deck. Damen

SHAH ALAM: Dutch shipyard builder has unveiled more details and pictures of the multi-purpose support ship (MPSS) which it is co-developing with Portuguese Navy. In the previous report on the MPSS, it was called multi purpose vessel.

In the report, I mentioned that I like the vessel as it appears that the ship is not equipped with a well-deck.

The MPV is interesting design for the RMN own MRSS requirements, as it is not equipped with a well deck. An MRSS without a well deck will be cheaper to operate and maintain, I believed. Of course, we also do not need the helicopter deck style of the MPV.

An overhead CGI view of the MPSS. Damen.

Damen is now offering the MPSS design in two versions – the 7000 and 9000 tons. Various version of the ship is also offered – a mother ship for airborne and water drones, an amphibious support ship with well deck and a non-well deck. All versions are equipped with hangars for airborne drones and a single 11-ton helicopter.
A CGI of the MPSS with a well deck. Note the 40mm gun aft. Damen.

The release from Damen:

Damen has begun construction of the first vessel of this new design. The MPSS range, featuring 7000 and 9000 tons versions, combines the vision of the Portuguese Navy, with Damen’s proven process of shipbuilding, using standardised solutions wherever possible. As a result, the vessel can be constructed quickly and offers a reliable, cost-effective platform.

While the electrical, communication and navigation equipment installed on the MPSS will be military class equipment, the vessel will also use commercial off the shelf technology. This includes, for example, the mission specific equipment modules, by which the vessel achieves its multi-functional capability.

In this way, when not required to perform its primary function, the MPSS can be applied to a wide range of duties including managing drones (air, sea, and sub-sea), conducting amphibious support, emergency/disaster relief, search & rescue, diving support, performing submarine rescue operations and helicopter operations.

The MPSS 7000 is 107 x 20 metres. It is foreseen that it will be operated by a crew of 48 personnel, with additional facilities for up to 100 special personnel and extra, temporary, accommodation for 42 persons, for example in the event of a disaster relief operation. The MPSS 9000 is 130x 20 meters and is able to conduct even more operations.

As a result of its modular approach, the vessel could be utilised year-round and is also easy to maintain. The MPSS Series can remain at sea for periods of at least 45 days. All these factors contribute to the vessel’s overall value, significantly increasing uptime.

Another version of the MPSS with a landing ship placed in the hull as it has no well deck.

The only weakness of the design, if I may point out – is the lack of defensive options. The CGI provided by Damen only showed a 40mm gun on the aft deck. That said a customer can specified a CIWS or two on the main superstructure or along the sides of the hull, if they want to pay for it. I of course, prefer a VLS or two for area defence.
Another version of the MPSS acting as a drone mother ship. Damen

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2150 Articles
Shah Alam

50 Comments

  1. Portugal, the launch customer is really using this as a mothership for various kinds of drones, UAS, USV and UUV.

    As for using it as a MPSS, it is not designed to carry and deploy large amounts of armoured vehicles. Instead, it is more of a floating seabase to support special forces amphibious operations.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GH0b6FEbYAAGbmX.jpg

  2. I definitely prefer a flattop MRSS. We can definitely use it to launch bigger TUAVs in conjunction to helicopters

    Also removing well deck would hamper its multi role capability. We would definitely find well deck to be useful to transport trucks, supplies, manpower for humanitarian mission

  3. What’s the budget allocated for the MPSS Marhalim? I’m afraid that’s going to be sticking point…

  4. If the required MPSS need no well deck but only to transport personel, vehicle, logistic and a helo then it is not an LPD but LST.

  5. It is still an LPD. A LST is a landing ship tank, which means exactly what is name, it land on beaches on for the tanks to get. An LPD without a well deck is basically a ro-ro ship, the vehicles goes out at a port or jetty.

  6. Its more of an MPSS rather than MRSS similar to our Indera Saktis. Not sure if MRSS is meant wanting more of the same, or it should have a wider capability ie landing ship, well dock.

    And whether its a thru deck mini carrier design or a more conventional ship layout depends on what types of equipment our MRSS is to carry onboard & launch and what kinds of mission profiles envisioned. Larger UAV/UCAV will need longer takeoff/landing runway deck while smaller portable UAVs can be launched & recovered from as small as a helideck (or even VTOL). A conventional design also offers more internal spaces for more crew in liew of raising the hull too high.

  7. Yeah, keep dreaming guys with current situation/administration I don’t think it’s feasible, Malaysian voters will cry murder if any procurement involved billions RM they think everything is cheap and must be corruption involved, further more foreign manufacturer don’t seem want to entertain fickle minded government just like HSR cancel cos’ “it’s to expensive” now want to restart it becomes twice as high and best part foreign governments don’t want to layan anymore.ha..ha..ha now defense allocation is in the bottom of the list.

  8. “Probably enough to buy enlarged Makassar Class”

    The enlarge Makassar class is UAE 163m LPD Al Mariyah class which is just start built by PT PAL. The tonnage is almost 13.000 tons and still has a well deck.

  9. If people just read the 15to5 Strategy Document, or just read, they will get some of the answers or at least a general idea of what the MRSS is. 15to5 Strategy Document page 55. One will realise whether a well deck is needed or how much aviation space is required, is really dependent on another branch of the MAF. It looks that if left to RMN to decide based solely on their own needs, they probably will be happy with a bigger and better version of an Indera Sakti type ship.

  10. >why the government are bunch of short sighted idiots

    Dunno, maybe the voters are just as short sighted as the politician they they voted into the office

  11. @dundun
    Indeed people complain about the Govt & the ministers & policies but many just simply refuse to realise that the Govt policies are resultant from the kind of politicians we voted and put them there in the 1st place. If we want better minded ministers in Govt we must have better minded people/voters.

  12. “Rushdiahmad” HSR cancel cos’ “it’s to expensive” now want to restart it becomes twice as high and best part foreign governments don’t want to layan anymore.

    Najib HSR agreement was very horrible though.

  13. “Zaft” what so horrible about it? please elaborate? just like current gomen want to fully funded private initiative, keep dreaming, no private sector want to fund 100b infrastructures project without government guarantee , look at China you think all HSR there is fully private funded initiative even in California HSR need Washington back funded

  14. kel – ”If people just read the 15to5 Strategy Document,”

    You included?

    kel – ”It looks that if left to RMN to decide based solely on their own needs, they probably will be happy with a bigger and better version of an Indera Sakti type ship.”

    Do some research. From years ago – from the time the Inderapura was lost and statements made regarding the Dokdo offer – the RMN already made it clear what it was looking at; something of a certain displacement with a certain draught and with so many landing spots. In other words something for its specific requirements; nothing superfluous and something it can afford to run without breaking the piggy bank

  15. Azlan – if you read the 15to5 strategy document, as I have, you will know where the idea of a more than a LPD MRSS requirement came from. You will also notice most of what you mention isn’t to serve RMN needs but another branch. Also it has already been discussed in another topic, yes if left to RMN they would have just replaced the Indera Saktis with a similar ship.

  16. Rushdiahmad “what so horrible about it? please elaborate?”

    First of all, we be paying 90% the cost with only 50% of says and the line itself is between 100% to 300% overpriced due to bad decision making and specification & route un optimisation while the lack of utilisation and passenger numbers mean high amount of annual subsidies.

    “no private sector want to fund 100b infrastructures project without government guarantee”

    Technically it PPP with the gov providing land that’s between 50%-70% of the cost. So it’s inline with how japan build their shinkansen

  17. kel – ”if you read the 15to5 strategy document, as I have, you will know where the idea of a more than a LPD MRSS requirement came from. You will also notice most of what you mention isn’t to serve RMN needs but another branch.”

    Brass tacks. Way before the 5/15 was laid out we already had a pretty good idea as to what the RMN was seeking; you’re seemingly unaware. Also it’s no surprise that the MPSS is intended to also serve the needs of another service; just like for most of the time RMAF MPASs will be supporting RMN ops. It’s no revelation as you make it out to be.

    kel – ”yes if left to RMN they would have just replaced the Indera Saktis with a similar ship.”

    No …. The Saktis were great for their time but as it stands they were a wee bit too small and limited in certain areas. Which hey presto is why way before Inderapura was lost the RMN had a requirement for a MPSS to augment and eventually replace the Saktis.

  18. This is a page out of the recent US Navy shipbuilding plan.

    You can see, the US Military mainly moves around the world not with LPDs, LPHs and LHAs, but mostly on ROROs

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJK8k4DaAAAn3V1.jpg

    they are divided into 2 types

    1) prepositioning RORO
    2) surge lift RORO

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJK-zPwaIAAHvV9.jpg

    Prepositioning RORO means the ship is on standby with equipments (tanks, IFVs, howitzers, etc.) already loaded inside the ship parked around the world (Diego Garcia is one location) and ready to sail away when it is needed.

    surge lift RORO is those ships that takes an existing unit from point a to point b. From the document, you can see the the US Navy is buying used commercial ROROs for its needs. 5 used ROROs already bought from 2021-2023, and will continue to buy used ROROs in 2024 and 2025 to a total of 9 used RORO ships to add to its fleet.

  19. kel – ”Have you read the 15to5 Strategy Document? ”

    Are you implying that just because I’m pointing out flaws in your narrative that I haven’t read it? Again, the 5/15 is not sacrosanct or holy writ; it provides a direction and lays out policy but it was always subject to revision and was never intended to be a one size fits all solution or the ideal means to an end. Also note that from the time it was released several changes have been made.

    kel – ”No need to avoid and obfuscate. ”

    Coming from you? That’s rich. Nobody is ”avoiding” anything; just because you’re unable to understand or comprehend something doesn’t indicate any ”avoiding”.

    kel – ” If that user shows no intent to buy the connectors to make it work or utilise the well deck, why should RMN pay for it?”

    Light bulb. There’s such a thing as ”jointness” [look it up]. The RMN has no issues with the fact that a MPSS will spend a lot of time doing non RMN stuff; just like how the RMAF has no issues with the fact that most of the time a A400M will be performing roles in support of other services or entities. Nature of the beast.

    kel – ”Perhaps this would help.”

    What would ‘help” is you engaging in some research of your own rather than forming the wrong conclusions and acting as if something you’ve just discovered is the holy grail when the plain fact is that it was widely known.

  20. kel – ”If that user shows no intent to buy the connectors to make it work or utilise the well deck, why should RMN pay for it?”

    It might be a wee bit challenging to understand but it’s really not hard.

    – From the dawn of time the services are always trying to ensure – as far as possible – that cash comes out from another service’s pocket is a certain piece of kit will benefit that other service. Ultimately the RMN is more than happy to have MPSSs [and the funding that comes along with it] even if the MPSS spends most of its time doing non RMN tasking.
    – Transporting army troops – whether for amphib assault which some are obsessed with or amphib movement are merely one element of the many roles a MPSS will perform. Since you’re probably clueless look up the roles the Saktis, Langkawi and 3 ex USN LSTS performed; everything from troop transfers to East Malaysia; to SAR, to acting as tenders to helping government agencies with certain things.
    – The Saktis were great for their time but had various limitation. Things BTW evolve and are not stagnant, the MAF’s needs have changed and the Saktis are past their prime and the design has limitations. Thus a need for a platform whicxh is wider; has a larger displacement and various things lacking on the Saktis including 3 heli spots. Also note that one requirement has not changed : the ability to lift a battalion. As pointed out to you; way before the Inderapura [look her up if you’ve not heard of her] the RMN already had a requirement for a MPSS to supplement and eventually replace the Saktis.

  21. @Kel
    “user shows no intent to buy the connectors to utilise the well deck”
    What do you have in mind what these connectors should be?
    If the well deck comes with landing craft, I think 99% of what TDM has can be hauled ashore, tanks & Astros may be an exception. Arguably their PUTD dont have enough assets to make use the helideck but thats where the new TUDM choppers coming in to support TDM.

  22. The fact that the USN has Ro Ros is hardly news [you’ve mentioned this a few times along with the customary links]. I’d be surprised if it didn’t have Ro Ros which BTW firm one component of its lift capability alongside LPDs and other things.

    For our needs we need a MPSS. A Ro-Ro is great if one just needs to lift things but the MPSS is intended to be a jack of trades [troop lift, SAR, tender, HADR, etc]. Again, a Ro Ro is a great supplement to a MPSS but not a substitute and if a need arises we can utilise a civilian operated one. If the RMN decided it needed a Ro Ro and not a MPSS then it would have asked for a MPSS but it didn’t …

  23. ” Also note that one requirement has not changed : the ability to lift a battalion ”

    There is a big difference in moving a BIS infantry battalion at 1 go, or moving a MIFV/Adnan or Gempita Mechanised infantry battalion in 1 go.

    If we have no budget in the near future for a MRSS, and RORO is verboten, US Navy has 2x JHSV to be taken (another 2 to be scrapped)

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIg-gOvaUAATfFw.jpg

    The JHSV can take in MBTs up to Abrams in weight. Able to function as a troop transport for 1 full infantry battalion for a 4 day long trip (enough for west to east malaysia hop); or to take 1 company/squadron of MIFV/Adnan, Gempita or PT-91M armoured vehicles for longer trips.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIhCmTlaYAAQm6F.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIhCqRba8AAFWU1.jpg

    It also has a large helipad that can take chinooks, and large hangar that can store 2 Blackhawks.

    Can also be used as floating base in ESSCOM with its large internal space. Large helideck ideal platform to operate scaneagles.

  24. Marine police meanwhile do want a Roro And in general could and should provide the support MAF needed on time of emergency. So Maybe PMX can ring his bubby up and get the police some soon to be retired spearhead.

  25. zaft – ”PMX can ring his bubby up and get the police some soon to be retired spearhead”

    ”Maybe” he can ask his best chum/mate/friend/buddy for help to improve race relations; the education level; to help repay IMDB debts; for 12 kiloton warheads with MIRVs and to help us have a forward presence in the Arctic whilst he’s at it.

  26. Throughout the time the army was flying its Nuris were crews certified to land on RMN decks? Will the Blackhawk pilots be?

    With the RMAF we know that a few pilots in each squadron had to be qualified and to remain current. As one pilot told me; they looked forward to deck landing on RMN ships as the food as always good [RMN food is known for its quality as I can personally attest]

  27. … – ”There is a big difference in moving a BIS infantry battalion at 1 go, or moving a MIFV/Adnan or Gempita Mechanised infantry battalion in 1 go.”

    – The mech units also include BIS battalions
    – Yes there is a big difference which is why the RMN has specified a minimum of 2-3 hulls.

    … – ”RORO is verboten”

    It is not ”verboten”. There are opinions and there are facts. The fact is that the MPSS is a jack of all trades; unlike the Ro Ro which is a one trick pony. A Ro Ro will complement; not be a substitute for a MPSS.

  28. P.S.

    – Yes and as you’re aware the RMN has specified a minimum of 2-3 hulls; hulls of a larger displacement than the Saktis.
    – There is also always the possibility that troops might be flown; their heavy gear sent by sea.
    – I would like Ro Ros but as a supplement. A Ro Ro is a one trick pony; a MPSS is not – measure of efficiency versus measure of success. There is however the question of whether having to operate and sustain MPSSs and Ro Ro will be superfluous to our needs. It’s not like we’re lifting troops and gear on a regular basis.
    Which is why I prefer “taking up for trade” civilian ones when needed.

  29. Kel “If that user shows no intent to buy the connectors to make it work or utilise the well deck, why should RMN pay for it?”

    Well, what do you expected?
    The MRSS would provided MinDef and MOF justification to further reduce the budget, the numbers of asset and heck even personnel count at the same time increasing the risk and workloads as now the gov can send the army beyond our territorial water if she wishes so.

    Would the navy bought it regardless? Yes. Because increasing sealift capabilities like airlift would provided justification to reduce the budget to the army in favor of the other 2 sisters.

    If the navy have to choose between postponing the MRSS or the subs, she would likely choose to postpone the subs because once they get the MRSS their % of budget can increase so they can now afford more subs then without it.

    @Hulubalang

    Unlike you, the taxpayers, MAF and the gov like to work with other military/countries rather than go gun ho rambo and do it alone. There is no merit to MY as a whole to choose unilateral decisions making nor she want to be the centre of attention as if she a shujinko in a manga.

  30. The discussion isn’t about (for me) the importance of MRSS. That the MRSS is ineccesaary to replace the Indera Saktis and support RMN’s aspirations as explained in the 15to5 Strategy Document is not in dispute. Nothing to do with govt doing what they do. RMN says MRSS is priority next RMK, govt say ok, how much? If too expensive because need a well deck and the landing crafts and maybe a few new helicopters for the Army, then what? Roros will not meet RMN’s own support requirements. Instead RMN’s ability to support Army can be done with Roros in some capacity. Roros and well deck are mainly an Army requirement. As mentioned in another discussion, RMN barely used the Inderapura’s beaching capabilities, and have gone decades without a well deck, so what has changed? Govt stating a desire for amphibious force which means Army will be needing a well deck. Yet very little of what the Army is doing suggests they will make use of the well deck. So why should RMN raise the cost of MRSS just to accommodate something the Army may not use? RMN will end up paying for the well deck, pay for the landing crafts, train the people to man the crafts and maintain the crafts. Army wants to take 20 years before committing to large scale amphibious operations – beyond small unit tactics – its their choice. But in the meantime, at least for the first MRSS (of 3 planned), keep it simple, well the deck shut, lower the budget. Also it is not how to move a battalion from A to B – this MAF has many ways to get done today. It is how to move a battalion from ship to shore. If Army prefers, port to port, then what’s the point of paying extra for a well deck and landing crafts? If Army says, I’m all in with launching a PT91M from ship to shore along with 80 10th Brigade Para soldiers, get a well deck – but only if Army is really going to do it. Else it will be extra cost for RMN for no real gains in MAF’s warfighting.

  31. zaft – ”The MRSS would provided MinDef and MOF justification to further reduce the budget, the numbers of asset and heck even personnel count at the same time increasing the risk and workloads as now the gov can send the army beyond our territorial water if she wishes so.”

    I really think you’re overthinking it and making it more complicated than it is. The RMN has long had a requirement for a new class of MPSSs to replace the Saktis and to perform a variety of peacetime and wartime roles in support of national interests. It’s really as simple as that.

    zaft – ”If the navy have to choose between postponing the MRSS or the subs, she would likely choose to postpone the subs ”

    If the RMN was actually asked and had a choice personally I think it would prefer a MPSS first because the Saktis are getting a bit long in the tooth and there already 2 subs but this is academic as existing plans only call for subs to be funded years from now; not even the next Malaysia Plan.

  32. … – ”The JHSV can take in MBTs up to Abrams in weight. ”

    It looks great but for a user which already has other lift assets; not a user who will rely on it for its main or only lift asset. For one it only has a single deck spot and doesn’t look like it can carry a battalion’s worth of troops. No doubt you will find reasons why it can be a MPSS substitute but to me – looked objectively – it’s a great supplement not a substitute. If we had need for a larger lift fleet and regularly had to move men and gear; it would be a perfect supplement.

  33. kel -”explained in the 15to5 Strategy Document is not in dispute. ”

    Gratified to hear but ”as explained” the 5/15 is not sacrosanct or holy writ. What was mentioned years ago will or can be tweaked [as it has] to reflect changes in policy or requirement.

    kel – ”Roros will not meet RMN’s own support requirements. Instead RMN’s ability to support Army can be done with Roros in some capacity. Roros and well deck are mainly an Army requirement. ”

    It can be a boy scout’ or ”Hell Angels” requirement but their primary purpose as far as lift goes is to move stuff from Point A to B whether humanitarian aid or IFVs.

    kel – ”RMN barely used the Inderapura’s beaching capabilities”

    It never did. The 100 over feet bow ramp was almost never used… The first Langgkawi and ex USN LSTs [Langkawi, Jarom and Banggi] did beaching ops [there are pics] but not the Inderapura.

    kel – ”RMN will end up paying for the well deck, pay for the landing crafts, train the people to man the crafts and maintain the crafts.”

    So? The RMAF pays for it’s transports and MPAs which most of the time are not used for RMAF specific taskings.

    kel – ”Also it is not how to move a battalion from A to B – this MAF has many ways to get done today. It is how to move a battalion from ship to shore. If Army prefers, port to port, then what’s the point of paying extra for a well deck and landing crafts? ”

    You got it wrong. The army does not ”prefer” it. It’s merely that if troops have to be moved; chances are it will be from Port A to B.

    kel – ‘Govt stating a desire for amphibious force which means Army will be needing a well deck.”

    So you keep saying but the government or anyone can ”state” a requirement for Corps Level Artillery Groups or hypersonic aircraft whilst they’re at it but reality has it that the actual ship or capability is barely part of the equation [just like how having a ARM capability doesn’t automatically equate to having a DEAD/SEAD capability]; the other part is the various enablers which all have to come into place in order for ”amphibious assault” to be performed. Now one can plan for anything [the skies the limit] but in actual reality as far as troop lift goes much higher likelihood of ”amphib movement” being performed.

    A paragraph is a self-contained unit of discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea.

  34. I was told that the RMN had looked into permenantly sealing the bow ramp of Inderapura just like what Oz did with their similar ship. In the end RMN left it at that it was deemed too costly for no real benefit.

  35. Same reason why certain things in cockpits; although no longer used; are left there. Taking it off including the wiring; is just too much work and cash. Cheaper to leave it.

  36. Kel “Govt stating a desire for amphibious force which means Army will be needing a well deck. Yet very little of what the Army is doing suggests they will make use of the well deck. So why should RMN raise the cost of MRSS just to accommodate something the Army may not use?”

    Ultimately it’s the gov who hold the purse not RMN or TDM. If RMN stated a desire for a ship without a well deck, the gov can always respond no ship for you at all then.

    And to be fair why would they even fought the gov because for the MRSS to work they would required escorts fleets.

  37. OK. User wrote a Strategy paper. User say on multiple occasion its the plan they want to execute. Sister branch also has a similar plan and is executing that plan quite well – mannage to fill up many of the pieces in the plan. But doesn’t matter. Those User written documents are crap because its not “what I think cause I know better”, OK got it…

  38. What is the reason for the Navy wanting to seal off the Inderapura’s ramp? Isn’t the ability to launch tanks and troops directly to shore beneficial and delightful for the Army?

  39. Those JHSV, whatever it is supposed to be, has a much bigger lift capacity then either of the current MPCSS if used for west to east malaysia hop. It can hold 100+ Humvees, or 20+ MBTs or IFVs, when the MPCSS can hold at most 8-9 gempitas. It has seats for 300+ soldiers and sleeping for 100+ more, which is the number of a usual infantry battalion. More soldiers could also be in the vehicle deck for short stints. With 40+ knot speed, it can go from say Kuantan to Bintulu in around 24 hours.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIhCxLDaEAA-LBW.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIhCy5EacAA5MWz.jpg

    The thing is that we can get these ships for almost free.

  40. @ marhalim

    Which part is nope?

    Getting them for almost free from USA? We have been receiving LST from USA for almost as long as we have a navy.

    – KD Sri Langkawi (USS Hunterdon County) – 1974

    – KD Sri Banggi (USS Henry County) – 1976

    – KD Raja Jarom (USS Sedgwick County) – 1976

    – KD Sri Inderapura (USS Spartanburg County) – 1995

    Sailing from Kuantan to Bintulu in 24 hours? The JHSV has 42+ knots top speed, with 35 knots cruising speed. KD Mahawangsa on the other hand, has a cruising speed of 14 knots. Kuantan to Bintulu distance is 642 nautical miles. Even at 35 knots, that distance will be covered in 19 hours

  41. Hulubalang “The thing is that we can get these ships for almost free”

    Have really no idea why you are obsessed on the spearhead must goes to the navy despite the marine police wanting something similar.

    While a lot of countries lack any enabler that can allow for law enforcement to support the military and vice versa the same is not true for us. So the army can still used the spearhead even if its owned by the police.

  42. The MRSS should have expanded capabilities beyond the current MPSS and this reflects in their 15to5 Plan, otherwise the MRSS might as well be simply an enlarged & updated MPSS, no need to headache just tell the shipbuilder; i want like ship A but scale it 20% bigger.

    “large scale amphibious operations”
    Is highly unlikely & improbable for us. The MRSS would need to be the size of Wasp LHD and multiple units of LHDs to perform such an operation. Do we even have a need for such capabilities? OTOH a well deck is useful for amphib landings for HADR when docks & ports are rendered unusable perhaps due to natural disaster. Also for TDM to do amphib movement, about 99% of their equipment are portable by the ships landing crafts baring maybe the Astros & Pendekars.

  43. @ darthzaft

    “Have really no idea why you are obsessed on the spearhead”

    I am obsessed?

    Sorry i am more of a RORO type of guy.

    But recently (few days ago) these things are to be retired by US Navy. They are almost brand new, so why not? There are of course advantages and disadvantages of the platform, but for the specific task of logistics bridge between east and west Malaysia, it is much more capable than any of the current TLDM MPCSS.

    So why not getting these rather than nothing or getting extremely expensive new ships that has less capability than the JHSV?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*