More on KD Perkasa

KD Perkasa making her way out of Kemaman. Note the Y gun on her aft. RMN

SHAH ALAM: IT appears that Malaysian Defence got two things wrong in recent articles on Handalan-class FAC, KD Perkasa, pennant number 3512. In a recent article on the FAC, Malaysian Defence wrote that

the Defence Ministry has issued a quotation notice for a modification work on Perkasa. The public portion of the notice did not say anything much apart that it was looking for quotation for the modification work. The QN was published on June 5 and closes on June 12, a period of seven days. I assuming that the modification will be like the ones done on Gempita and Pendekar

The men of KD Perkasa at LIMA 2023. KD Perkasa.

The bold line is important as it was one of the things I got wrong. Actually, the QN work is not likely something to do with the CMS as the contract for the modification work was awarded to Geliga Slipway Sdn Bhd. Geliga Slipway located in Kemaman, Terengganu is the shipyard which did the OP Plus work on Perkasa.
The officers of KD Perkasa during the Fleet Review at LIMA 2023. KD Perkasa.

The contract award is listed at Eperolehan at RM305,855.45. Geliga Slipway is the sole bidder for the modification work. I am not going to guess again the modification work to be done on Perkasa as it is likely that I will get it wrong again.
The men of KD Perkasa standing at attention during the Fleet Review at LIMA 2023.

So, what is second mistake on Perkasa? Since she was delivered to RMN in May, I had consistently said that the Y-gun – L70 40mm Bofors – had been taken off her. However, pictures from Perkasa own Facebook page showed that the gun remained on her.
The latest picture of KD Perkasa. Her new hull looked beefier than the old one. The picture also confirmed that the Y 40mm gun was taken off during her OP Plus rebuilt. RMN

However, without an external firing guidance, the Y-gun remained a spray and pray weapon. Yes, there are ways to fire the gun with an external fire control system, but it is rudimentary at best.
A file picture of KD Perkasa showing her Exocet missile launchers, her Y 40mm gun and A gun 57mm gun. RMN

The gun still needs to be fired manually though unlike the 57mm Bofors – the A gun – which can be fired remotely if they install the CMS as done on KD Gempita and KD Pendekar.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2205 Articles
Shah Alam

8 Comments

  1. The Y guns are more useful to intimidate when pointing at perps during boarding actions. Perhaps that is why it was kept.

  2. Nope, it is unhelpful in such scenario as it is very inaccurate and therefore could even injure or worse, the sailors conducting the boarding.

  3. ”The Y guns are more useful to intimidate when pointing at perps during boarding actions.”

    No … For boarding operations on a trawler or a boat of refugees neither the A or Y gun is pointed; let alone manned – overkill. What is pointed are pintle mounted MGs and of course the boarding party has their rifles. If indeed there was a serious threat it would be the A or main gun used to ”intimidate” as the bow of the ship would be pointed at the potential target; the Y gun would not have a clear or ideal arc…

  4. “as it is very inaccurate”
    The point is not to shoot anything but to show that they will shoot if needed. A mounted MG would have been effective but its scarier to see a long 40mm aimed back.

  5. They will not be able to depress the gun low enough to be off any use even if just for scaring people. Moreover they need the five people who normally manned the gun to do the boarding or covering the stopped boat.

  6. ‘its scarier to see a long 40mm aimed back.”’

    – As explained; the angle is such that only the main or A gun will be in a position.

    – The pintle mounted GPMGs and rifles carried by the boarding party are more than sufficient to ”scare” crew of trawlers or boatloads of refugees [not freebooters or pirates out looking for trouble]. There is no need no for the A and Y gun to be manned during boarding operations and they aren’t. If the ship intercepted is a foreign military one the SOPs are different but even then the man gun is not pointed in any direction.

    – Manpower is an issue. You do realise that the boarding party’s normally the same chaps [on MCMVs, FACs and PCs who man the guns?

    – A major headache for the CO is if the trawler has to be brought to shore [this means once less ship on patrol] because he would then have to allocate men to the trawler [remmember the incident when a MMA was overpowered and brought back to Vietnam?] .
    Once at shore the CO has to hand over the crew of the trawler [along with evidence; fish, etc] to the police, make a report and file in a tonne of paperwork. Later he also might have to be in court when the crew are charged. I know this from someone who’s been through this and from someone else who was one of 2-3 lawyers in the RMN.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*