MRSS Contenders – DSA 2018 Shorts

Naval Group Mistral 170

KUALA LUMPUR: Three contenders for the RMN’s MRSS requirements are being showcase at DSA 2018 which starts tomorrow at the MITEC, Jalan Duta. There are probably others as well but these were the three that I saw today, the media preview day.

Two are the usual suspects, the PT PAL Makassar class variant and the Damen Enforcer 10000. The third is a dark horse, the Naval Group Mistral 170, colloquially call as the mini-Mistral. It is likely that a Chinese contender or two are also around in the halls but as most booths were still being set-up today I have to post these three first.

Naval Group Mistral 170

It is interesting to note that Boustead is not displaying a model of its own MRSS contender. They have two models of corvettes which seemed to indicate that they are not going ahead with a newer version of the Kedah class.
Damen Enforcer 10000

So which will be the MRSS design to be announced by the RMN as announced by the chief last week? I have no idea so far but I have been told that there is no funds allocated for the program so far. So it is unlikely an LOI will be sign for the MRSS soon. The LOA for the NSM is confirmed though with the LOI to be awarded for the MBDA VL MICA.
PT PAL Makassar class variant

— Malaysian Defence

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

About Marhalim Abas 2225 Articles
Shah Alam


  1. Naval Group Mistral 170???really?that is just too ambitious to us and knowing how our govt love plating this is concern. got to give thumb up for naval group though.

    need to wait for past election to get the green light. hope the shipyard which get the MRSS is a good one.

  2. Quite a dark horse for the mistral.. might as well look at mini dokdo which was offered years back. Possibly even cheaper than a mini mistral.

    Side note, even today even south korea cant find a definite use of the dokdo.

  3. nasn “Side note, even today even south korea cant find a definite use of the dokdo.”

    What is your idea of a “definite use”? South Korea has had a requirement for a marine corps and a powerful amphibious capability for many years. Having two LPH is a logical extension as Korea’s economy becomes better able to support it. You should note that North and South Korea have very long coastlines and most major cities are along the coast, not to mention they have several islands.

    For another thing, China is increasingly a concern to South Korea and there is a territorial dispute involving islands much like that between China and Japan (which are both boosting their amphibious capabilities). You could say that asset such as F-35s, submarines and SLCMs do not have a “definite use” against North Korea, but South Korea is keeping more than North Korea in mind. Even outside of a Korea – China confrontation, Chinese involvement in a second Korean war is a possibility should North Korea’s front collapse.

  4. All the contenders/yards have a track record; that’s not the issue. The real issue is how much will be allocated for the programme and how much compromises/trade offs the RMN will have to make in ensuring that what is eventually ordered comes close as possible to meeting its requirements/standards in line with the allocated budget.

    We can can go for a cheap hull with minimal DC, shock, noise isolation, etc, standards or we can take another approach and go for something with reasonably adequate DC, shock, noise isolation, etc, standards – it all depends on how much we’re willing to spend. Other factors will also determine the overall costs. Will we go for the cheap option of a 30mm auto cannon in the ‘A’ position with a FCS? If we go for a 57/76mm gun and a fire director we are looking at several million or more Euro. Will we go for a CMS to link the gun, sensors and other stuff or will we go for something more modest?

    A ”cheaper” Dokdo or something else ”cheaper” will mean certain compromises/trades off will have to be made. One tends to get what one pays for. We don’t however need something like Dokdo as it’s not practical for our use. For one, we don’t need the available flight deck space. We also don’t have the needed helicopters and army pilots [unlike RMAF ones] are not [at least not yet] rated to land on ship decks.We need something with utility; something in line with our requirements; not something superfluous for our needs, e.g. the RTN’s Chakri Naruebet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.