Options Two and Three for LCS

LCS PCU Maharaja Lela. Her name could be seen on the stern. Picture taken on Aug. 23. 2017. The PAC report stated that the mast was just built for the launch for some RM400,000. The mast was taken off after the ceremony and still stored at BNS.

SHAH ALAM: The Cabinet has decided to go forward with options two and three for the LCS project, says Defence Minister DS Ismail Sabri told Parliament yesterday. He said the Cabinet had decided to drop option one from the consideration. Ismail had told Parliament in August back that the ministry had offered to the Cabinet three options to revive the LCS project.

Option one was to get Naval Group – the state owned French company and design authority – to act as the main contractor replacing Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS) or option two allow BNS – a Malaysian state owned company and main contractor for the LCS – to complete two ships for another RM3 billion. The third option was to find another company to revive the project.

Maharaja Lela was sprayed with sea water as part of the launch gimmick. This was the closest she got to the sea.

Ismail said the Cabinet had decided not to take option one and considerations was still on-going for the second and third options. From the Hansard

Jadi, ada tiga opsyen yang kita cadangkan kepada Kabinet. Pertama, supaya syarikat French Naval Group yang menjadi pemegang kepada design ini, ia meneruskan kontrak ini. Itu opsyen yang
pertama.Opsyen kedua, kita serahkan semula kepada Boustead Shipyard untuk
meneruskan projek. Kalau LCS diteruskan oleh Boustead Shipyard, kita terpaksa
release kan RM3 bilion lagi. Sebenarnya projek ini RM9 bilion, RM6 bilion memang telah
digunakan, tinggal RM3 bilion lagi. Kita terpaksa beri kepada mereka untuk meneruskan
projek. Ketiga adalah tamatkan kontrak, kita lantik syarikat lain sebagai syarikat
penyelamat. Jadi, dalam keputusan yang dibuat oleh Kabinet, opsyen pertama kita kata,
kita tidak perlu gunakan opsyen pertama, tidak perlu memilih opsyen yang pertama. Ada
dua opsyen saja. Boustead Shipyard, mungkin kita boleh beri mereka peluang. Akan
tetapi Boustead Shipyard perlu membentangkan dari segi perancangan mereka kalau
kita berikan kebenaran mereka untuk teruskan kontrak, itu untuk long term. Akan tetapi untuk short term, jangka pendek, tindakan-tindakan diambil.
Pertama, melaporkan kepada SPRM. Kedua, menyerahkan kepada PAC supaya
menyiasat. Ketiga, forensic audit mesti dilakukan. Keempat, due deligence, kalau kita
hendak bagi kepada mereka, adakah mereka mempunyai kemampuan lagi? So, due
deligence mesti dilakukan dan laporan akan dikeluarkan. Kelima, revamp. Semua
pengurusan tertinggi di dalam Boustead Shipyard dan yang seterusnya kalau ada di
dapati kes yang melibatkan penyalah gunaan, domestic enquiry akan diteruskan. Ini
untuk short term. Akan tetapi long term, kita akan tunggu lagi cadangan yang akan
dibuat oleh Boustead Shipyard ini, apa yang sepatutnya dilakukan seterusnya.



Egyptian Navy EL Fateh Gowind 2500 corvette.

Based on the statement from the minister, it appears that SPRM lodged Boustead two months ago was part of the plan to revive the project. To be honest I have no idea why they want the Public Accounting Committee to investigate further about the project as the AG had already done an audit report on the project.
The LCS major equipment detailed. RMN graphic

It is likely that the government, if it is not superseded by a new one, any revival of the LCS project – approval and budget – will only be firmed up in the RMK12. The RMK12 is supposed to be announced in the new year.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1729 Articles
Shah Alam

65 Comments

  1. If option 2 is chosen, that would mean we will get just 2 Gowinds at a price of RM4.5 billion each. Or about USD1.11 billion each.

    Seriously not a great idea.

    We need 6 ASW frigates. Not 2.

    Just sell off all the hulls, keep all the electronics, radar and weapons and start over.

  2. “Delivery of the Type 31 is a fixed contract between Babcock and the MoD that does not allow the customer to make changes to the design or equipment fit during construction. Although there is plenty of margin for additions, any upgrades will have to be made after they enter service.”

  3. In the crossroads really..wanna scrap this project, billions already invested in..wanna continue this project it will become vastly overpriced..hmmm..

  4. I believe option 3 is unnecessary. The gowind predicament is not mainly caused by BNS technical incompetence. Going for option 3 means still more uncertainty to the deadlines and cost, that could turn out to be much more worse than option 2.

    Anyway I would propose an option 4. This is to recoup as much as possible the money we have spent, while setting up for a better future capability for TLDM when compared to option 2.

    My Option 4.

    – Return all 6 Gowind hulls back to Naval Group for resell to 3rd party. Naval Group will give Malaysia a single Scorpene Submarine in return. Naval Group will pay BNS to complete all 6 gowinds as a sailable ship (with engine, bridge systems, IPMS) without weapons and combat systems installed. Naval Group can choose to complete the Gowinds in BNS or at other locations (for example at the country that buys the hulls).

    – Malaysia to keep all weapons (57mm gun, 30mm RCWS, NSM missiles) and electronic systems (Fire control radar, SMART-S radar, ESM, sonar, towed VDS sonar, SOFRESUD pointers, etc.) that has been bought for the programme. The paid for CMS would probably be best given together with the hulls back to Naval Group.

    – Restart the LCS project with a new hull design. To have 6 ships, wanted or not we need to go with a lower spec and cheaper hull when compared to the gowinds. All 6 to be built by the designer own shipyard. A 2nd batch of 6 would be later be considered to be build in Malaysia. 2nd batch to be paid for in RMK13 2026-2030.

    – The proposed new hull design would be based on the HDF-2600 ( I would call this the HDF-2600 Mod ). This could be bundled together with a major buy of fighters and armoured vehicles from Korea. Phillipines got their HDF-2600 for USD165 million each, that is including guns, radars and other electronics, excluding missiles. As most of the radars, electronics, guns etc. will be carried over from what we have bought for Gowinds, i believe we can get them for around USD135 million each. That is about RM3.5 billion for 6 ships.

    So for RM500 million more than Option 2, we could have 6 ASW Frigates, plus an additional Scorpene. This will also set us up to buy another 6x HDF-2600 Mod in RMK13 2026-2030.

    So with Option 4, by 2030 TLDM would have
    2x Lekiu (to be retired post 2030, replace with Type 31? )
    2x Kasturi (to be retired post 2030, replace with Type 31? )
    12x HDF-2600 Mod (6x paid for in RMK12, 6x paid for in RMK13)
    4x Scorpenes (1x in exchange of 6 gowinds, 1x paid for in RMK13)

    If go for Option 2 probably TLDM by 2030 would have
    2x Lekiu
    2x Kasturi
    4x Gowind (2 more paid for in RMK13 to be completed)
    2x Scorpenes.

  5. @…

    12 frigates are really optimistic. If RMN could get six it’s already a blessing!

    So actually what caused the delays at the first place? Since it’s not due technical reasons, someone doing an Amin Shah again?

  6. if option 2 fail? how? can Boustead pay the penalty? I not sure option 1 how much we going to pay but if DCNS fail, they have a big financial background to pay the penalty or ensure the project will not fail easily. Option 2 and 3 look safe cost but you cannot see and measure if it fail again. HSR project become HJR project is a very short term thinking. Anyway, we think big but do not have cash. So, we now need to think small.

  7. One thing for certain..This LCS will not enter service anytime soon..Mybe post 2025..Yeah thats right, at that time maybe SG MRCV or/and ID’s Iver already close to enter the service.

  8. @ ASM

    Lots of issues that caused the delay. You will find out about it if you read between the lines of all the Gowind articles here in 2020.

    The issue with Option 2 is we are not going to get even 6. My option 4 as is would get us 6x HDF-2600 Mod plus 1x scorpene in RMK12 budget.

    @ Michael

    Yes there is a possibility of failing, why IMO a lower risk route would be my option 4. Korean shipbuilders are known for their on the dot completions of their ships. Think small but get more in return.

    ______________________________________

    It is important for TLDM to have the 6 ASW Frigates it seek out to have, and it is also important for TLDM to beef up its underwater forces.

    By 2030 the scenario in South China Sea would be vastly different compared to now. If we do nothing, we probably could say goodbye to our oil and gas platforms, and also fishing rights in our own waters.

    http://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/12/u-s-navy-submarine-fleet-to-be-overtaken-by-china-before-2030/

  9. I on the other hand prefer option 3, with the flow should be the following:

    A) let another marine group with strong financial background to finish the job at the original contract price of RM 9 billion. Means government will pay them only 3 billion while they fork out the other 3 billion

    B) however they are given the the sole exclusive right to build the navy next ships say for the next 20 years

    Reply
    There is no such company exists in Malaysia. If you have one please tell us.
    That was the deal given to BNS when it took over the Kedah class project. The problem started when they didn’t signed for the next six ships immediately after the last ships were completed. Many experienced hands left leaving the company with juniors five years later

  10. @ Kamal

    There is no way any other company would risk to take up the job of completing 6 Gowinds like your idea. If government pay RM3 billion and the company need to fork out RM3 billion like your idea, that means the company is basically a charity completing the ships for free!!!

    RM3 billion (government) – RM3 billion (company money) = big fat zero!

    That is elementary maths by the way…

  11. Am now asking a dumbass question… Are we getting the same ships if we go for Options 2 & 3? I’ll ignore Option 4 since only 2 & 3 are mentioned by the minister. I don’t have much knowledge on warships except that they are slow moving surface machines. 😉

    Reply
    That’s the plan, though I am pretty sure the AG audit report will say otherwise

  12. Option 2 is still the best of the worst. The best hope is after another RM 3 billions is given the 2 ships is built included weapon and sensors.
    Yes…it will be the most expensive ship IN THE WORLD in it class.

    So what will happen to LCS no 3,4, and 5?

    Reply
    My guess is that if they could complete 1 and 2, then the project will continue until the rest are completed. Its the same thing with the Kedah class really

  13. Ok with option 2 but BNS must completed the 4 unit Frigates right on schedules with option 2 more later but additional 1 more subs if budget available.

  14. Bah! I would have went with Option 1 and 2, BNS having proven they could not perform with even their staff implicated in certain wrongdoing. Continuing to trust BNS is just nationalism hubris that just digs the hole further down.

    Even then they should not be given leeway to get off scot-free. Ok there still remains RM 3Bil in the budget, release that sum for them to continue progressing as much possible and BNS estimated they needed another RM 3Bil to finish. We can take a leaf from how the Brits resolve their QE carriers fiasco by having BNS sign another contract for extension with 50% of any overrun cost incurred to complete be borne by BNS.

    I still can’t get why Auditor General did not come out and just say what was the main issue that caused this delays and overrun.

  15. Marhalim – “. Its the same thing with the Kedah class really”

    A case of history repeating itself.

    It’s a “damn if you do and damn if you don’t” situation. The RMN needs those multi role frigates but making that happens means the taxpayer will have to fork out much more. Failure to do that leaves much uncertainty aa the RMN’s capabilities in the coming years and it’s impact in other areas.

  16. @…

    So far the posts here have not elaborated on what was/were the cause(s) that led to this situation. There’s a SPRM report, some guys being removed but other than that not much.

    Viewing the economic and political situation now I have doubts that the gov is willing to fund more high ticket purchases. The age old question of “kita nak perang dengan siapa” will start appearing; and not many Malaysians really care about our fishing rights and O&G resources as they are not directly affected by it and thus do not see the bigger picture.

  17. Continuing with option 2

    what could happen…

    It would take the whole of RMK12 (up till 2025) to complete, do trials, undertake recitfication of problems found in the trials and commission 2 gowinds for RM3 billion..

    Then in RMK13 RM5 billion (guesstimate) more will be pumped into BNS to complete another 4 Gowinds. By 2026-2030 some of the specification and components have gone obsolete (more than 10 years passed since original design) so more VO will be needed to complete the rest of the 4 ships.

    In all around RM14 billion would have to be spent and a time of 18 years since start of contract signing (2012 to 2030) to get all 6 gowinds commissioned.

    Getting the money to complete all 6 gowinds will also mean less money for other things for TLDM. Probably other needs such as MRSS, ASW helicopters etc. will need to be deferred or need to get lower speced equipment. There would also be no possibility of any additional submarines before 2030, like the original 15 to 5 plan.

    By the time we completed all 6 Gowinds i 2030, there is a chance that even the Philippines Navy with its aggressive modernization drive will be a force equal if not bigger than TLDM.

    By 2030 there is a possibility that PLA Navy will be a force even bigger than US Navy, with the biggest submarine force in the world.

    It is a very important and heavy decision to be made, that could really shape what kind of malaysia ( still proudly independent or just a vassal country to a bigger power) our children and grandchildren will inherit in 2030.

  18. Not only the Malaysian public, alas even Naval group must be wondering what is happening to this programe when the Gowind is a success in other countries.

    If I had it my way, i’d opt for a Daegu or the La Fayette class which are bigger and importantly better be build in their shipyards, with a 76mm up front.

  19. “Sebenarnya projek ini RM9 bilion, RM6 bilion memang telah
    digunakan, tinggal RM3 bilion lagi. Kita terpaksa beri kepada mereka untuk meneruskan
    projek.”

    Sound like govt got no choice but to release another 3 billion just to complete just two ships..9 billion for just two ships..Roughly 4.5 billion each..Thats a destroyer price territory…

  20. @ ASM

    The audit report has lots to be improved.

    It goes out of its way to implicate wrongdoing of something that has no issues at all. But covers up potentially bigger issues with just general numbers and statements without stating reasons why it happened and who caused that to happen.

    There are plenty of causes that delayed the gowinds, none is stated in the audit. Below is what is glanced by reading between the lines of public sources.

    – VO changes to the specifications after the steel is already cut and hulls in build (still cannot pinpoint who is the initiator for this, yes the intention was good but it caused the delay to happen)

    – Additional cost incurred because of the VO changes

    – Technical capability of BNS. Too many details has BNS as main PIC (instead of say Naval Group), that BNS cannot handle them all at once.

    – The want for the PN government to have cost savings in all projects. The gowind cannot give that, and actually has cost increase due to VO. So the build stopped to find savings.

    – actually no money in the governments coffers allocated for this project at that point of time.

    – exchange rate of ringgit falling.

    – contract in RM when many items to be bought in Euro or USD.

    – Tun M angry at French boycott of palm oil biodiesel in EU. Stopped the signing of VL MICA and probably many other things with Naval Group.

    – The BNS shipyard only have 4 slots for frigate build. as all of the hulls is still on land, it cannot proceed to build hull 6 with hull 4 and 5 only partially build.

  21. @ Zainal

    Yes i’ll take daegu over Hdf2600..Daegu somewhat on par with the LCS in term of tonnage and size..But still more likely this LCS project will continue.

  22. I don’t understand.. Option 1 – Give to Naval Group to fix the project, assuming its for 6 ships. Option 2 – Give BNS RM3 billion which they say its only enough for 2 ships – what about the other 4? Option 3 – Appoint another company to fix the project , assuming its for 6 ships…. Isn’t Options 1 and 3 the same thing – appoint a new contractor. This sounds more like Option 3, we give to a crony company. The 3 options should be 1) Cancel the project, 2) Continue the project with same contractor, 3) Continue the project with different contractor. And they still haven’t’ answered the question of how many ships will eventually be built? Will they go the NGPV route and get all six but only guns? Or they are going to built 2 ships (maybe 3) with full specs? They also have not answered the question of when the ships must be delivered – what is MINDEF’s requirements for any contractor (for Options 2 and 3). What’s the point of asking any contractor for their proposal if MINDEF as buyer, doesn’t impose their own?

  23. @zainal abidin
    If compared to La Fayette or Daegu, I prefer the LF derived Formidables. IMHO this is the best packaged dripping with lethality frigate in this region. LF original config doesn’t even come with VLS but as FFBNW. And Daegu only has 16 VLS (similar to LCS) but far inferior numbers to the 32 cell VLS fully loaded in Formidable.

    @…
    I concur with your assessment on the audit report. It just reflects on the perhaps poorly done audit. Which is why I question the quality of the audit work and the auditors themselves & their boss. Again this is the guys that claimed “we didn’t get paid in full for assets we didn’t buy based on specifications we didn’t put out”.

    @KL
    We won’t be going the NGPV route as most of the systems and weapons have been bought/ordered. The only uncertain is VL MICA which really is a silver lining as we could shoot for longer ranged VL MICA NG now.

  24. “– exchange rate of ringgit falling.
    – contract in RM when many items to be bought in Euro or USD”

    Seems like i was partially correct 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️ who wants to do business if you only pay 3/4 of the original in USD.

    @…
    As much as your HDF2600 + Scorpene plan is doable or realistic or more beneficial, it seems the most unlikely outcome as of now unfortunately. Probably someone need to address this to MinDef or the Minister ASAP. That being said i am ok if the total price to complete all 6 LCS is RM12 billion as stated by some reports. RM9 billion for 1st 2 ships is fine as long as only need another RM3 billion to complete the rest.

  25. Just forget BNS. No more BNS. Give the project to anther company to complete. If its the most expensive ships on earth so be it. Sue BNS to recover the money.
    Get any company that can complete the first two ships to complete the rest.
    Otherwise just abandoned the project n call tenders afresh . This time let the overseas yard to complete all 6 ships

  26. @ luqman

    ” As much as your HDF2600 + Scorpene plan is doable or realistic or more beneficial, it seems the most unlikely outcome as of now unfortunately ”

    I have no interests monetarily in this. I will continue putting out ideas that will have a positive impact on the future of malaysia. If they take it up, good. If not, probably I will need a plan b for my childrens future.

    ” That being said i am ok if the total price to complete all 6 LCS is RM12 billion as stated by some reports ”

    There is something that cannot be bought with money. Lost time… The problem is, instead of getting all 6 ships around 2022, at best we will only going to get all 6 by 2030. I am all for the project to continue the for RM12 billion only if they can all be in the water by 2025.

    By 2030 all other around us will have moved forward while we just completed our plan that was supposed to be complete 8 years earlier.

    @ lee yoke meng

    ” Just forget BNS. No more BNS ”

    If BNS got their payment on time, the delay shouldn’t be as bad as now.

  27. Beside BNS, who else can continued the project? Another contender Meko A200 frigates….

    Reply
    I think there is no other company can do it really

  28. Fadiman – “nother contender Meko A200 frigates”

    It’s a totally different design (as you’re well aware) and whatever option is selected the intention will be to continue with the existing design.

  29. IMO option 3 is virtually impossible.

    The SGPV gowind build is too intertwined with multiple boustead subsidiaries for another malaysian company to take over the project. Even if there is, little chance any other companies could complete it to the original specifications for less than BNS.

    Its either we trust BNS and stump out the remaining money to get the original USD2.8 billion ceiling cost whatever the ringgit exchange is. Or just forget about the Gowind and start over with whatever little budget that we have right now.

    Whatever the decision is, a decision needs to be taken ASAP, and whatever it takes TLDM needs to get 6 ASW frigates that it wanted with this project. The project has been in limbo for like 2 years already and we dont have the luxury of time to delay this further with the current situation in South China Sea.

  30. Lee – “Just forget BNS. No more BNS. roject to anther company to complete. If its the most expensive ships on earth so be it. Sue BNS to recover the money“

    Like various things; easier says than done ….

    BNS’s core business is refits for the RMN. Sure, other yards can and do perform refits but BNS is located smack in the naval base. Suing is one thing: having the ability to pay is another completely different matter. If BNS goes down how long will it take for another company to take it over? Also, what affects will it have on the RMN given that BNS is its main refit yard ……… ?

    This cockup has to be resolved. Not only that but we have to ensure it doesn’t happen again. As it stands we have a tendency to not learn from out mistakes; instead we sweep it under the carpet and hope it doesn’t repeat. When shiite hits the fan: it’s the end user and taxpayer which incurs the penalties; in yet another national interests programme intended to deliver long term tangible benefits (they all are planned with that in mind) but ultimately went ratshit ….

    Jacob – “Just Cancel the project”

    And what about the cash that’s been spent so far? What about the extra years it’ll take for the RNN to get its multi role frigates which were intended to be its most capable?

    What do we do with the hulls which have been completed? On paper we can sell them but in actual reality what if nobody wants to touch hulls made by BNS with a barge pole: what then? Or what if current market predictions predict that there is no ready buyer in the short to long term for the hulls?

    The reality is the LCS will enter service: the questions are how much more exactly has to be spent, how many hulls will enter service and how it will affect other things?

    Zainal – “even Naval group must be wondering“

    The industry is small and DCNS has people working with BNS; they know what and how things went wrong ….

  31. @ azlan

    ” This cockup has to be resolved ”

    Unlike the cockup during the Kedah class which can be squarely blamed on PSC ND, this time round a big portion of the blame needs to be put on the politicians, finance ministry and kementah. Which is why the audit report on the gowinds is so damn vague in the first place, so that the politicians, finance ministry and kementah would not be blamed. If it is mainly BNS fault, they would have easily pinned the blame squarely on BNS in the audit report.

    ” what if there is no ready buyer in the short to long term for the hulls? ”

    Indonesia has bought used ships like the nakhoda ragam and has no issues buying foreign ships, like its latest MCMV built in germany. They have publicly said to be looking at the gowinds. They will surely take it, for various reasons if it is available to them. Others like Egypt and UAE could also benefit from hulls already in advanced build stage to quickly add additional hulls to their fleet. Even Vietnam and Philippines have looked at the gowinds before, and with Naval Group opening a new office in Manila anything can happen.

    Anyway if the government can just stump out the needed additional RM6 billion right now, the only problem would be how can all 6 Gowinds can be completed in the least possible time. But the government already say that it can just allocate RM3 billion more for the project, and this is where the main predicament is. It all comes down to money. If in the end RM 3 billion is the maximum that the government will spend, TLDM will end up with just 2 frigates costing RM9 billion plus scraps for 4 frigate hulls.

  32. What wrong with option 1, is it to costly to send the ship to naval group to continue the building?

    Why not atleast we gave the other 4 to naval group to build while bns continue the other 2?

    Reply
    The Minister didn’t say why really apart from saying it was not the right choice. May well be Naval Group said no

  33. … – “Indonesia has bought used ships like the nakhoda ragam and has no issues buying foreign ships, like its latest MCMV built in germany”

    The issue is clearly not whether Indonesia has issues buying foreign ships or anyone else for that matter.

    The issue is DCNS convincing someone to get uncompleted hulls which have been constructed by BNS. It’s not as if BNS has a stellar record. It also
    has to be at the right price and everybody has to benefit – easier said than done. Whilst the possibility – on paper – of selling those hulls looks possible; in actual reality I’m not as sanguine as you are on the chances.

    … – “anything can happen”

    Indeed. Or it can not.

    The reality is those uncompleted hulls will eventually have a “KD” prefix.

    On DCNS and it’s office in Manila. It seems confident it has a chance of selling subs but politics being what it is there and the costs of not only buying those subs but also maintaining them could be a prohibitive factor. As it stands the PN is facing budgetary issues even keeping what surface units it has at sea and maintaining what it has.

    Also, sure the circumstances are wholly different but just as a point of interest; DCN opened an office here in the 1980’s and that’s when we first sent people for training to France but it took them until 2002. Like us the Philippines has a long history of changing priorities and like us it has a king list but only so much cash.

  34. @…
    Firstly, I don’t think there is any nation will buy which ever the unfinished LCS until they make their own investigation.

    Secondly, Every nation who will buy this unfinished ship will calculated the normal cost of the ship later they want a big discount for the trouble that can come after they buy it.

    Thirdly, What ever happen today due to decision which is made earlier. The trouble, risk and lost occur are a must to take.

    If the gov want to freeze or sell the unfinished LCS certainly will cost bigger than take option no.2

    No need to explore other type of ship until this damn ship settled.

  35. @ romeo, azlan

    Whatever it is, even if we abandon the gowinds now and sell it at scrap value, spending RM3.5 billion on the HDF-2600 Mod will get us a confirmed 6 ships with an achievable deadline. This will also set us up to get 6 more HDF-2600 Mod batch 2 in RMK13 2026-2030 at a cost much more lower than if we are going to buy 6 Gowinds batch 2.

    Right now for option 2 we need to spend RM3 billion for 2 Gowinds. There is no confirmation of we are willing to spend more to complete the 4 remaining Gowinds.
    _________________________________________

    ” Secondly, Every nation who will buy this unfinished ship will calculated the normal cost of the ship later they want a big discount for the trouble that can come after they buy it ”

    Of course.

    Which is why in my Option 4, I suggested just to trade it all for 1 new scorpene. 6 gowinds complete with Engines, IPMS, OSI Maritime Systems Warship Integrated Bridge System, SETIS CMS worth much2 more than a single scorpene.

  36. If you say so. I really have no idea and I won’t assume that it will indeed work out that way in reality. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t but to me it’s academic as the hulls that are incomplete will eventually be assigned a “KD” prefix.

    … – “Which is why in my Option 4, I suggested just to trade it all for 1 new scorpen

    Yes, you keep mentioning.

    Unlikely in my opinion given the huge complexities (DCNS will have to determine if it can find a buyer in the short term – despite things appearing rosy on paper: whether the buyer is willing to accept ships built by BNS and how much profits can be made) involved and the fact that our priority is to get the programme moving.

  37. Our main priority should be to get TLDM the 6x ASW Frigate that it needs by 2025.

    With the least amount of money to be further spent.

  38. @…

    I think the best way to reach your target of ship, i believe tldm might have to start ngpv batch 2 or lekiu batch 2

    Yes more money but to totally scrap the gowind project which we already spend 6 billion is just i think might create more problem than solve it, with or without bns we need to finish the lcs project

    For ngpv batch 2 for example we can start with maybe 2 ship first, build at overseas contractor shipyard direct leave bns only for refit

  39. @…
    You seemed very confident that if we buy Koreans we would get the ships in time but did you forget the long delayed Samuderas were also from Korean origin?

  40. @…
    “Which is why in my Option 4, I suggested just to trade it all for 1 new scorpene. 6 gowinds complete with Engines, IPMS, OSI Maritime Systems Warship Integrated Bridge System, SETIS CMS worth much2 more than a single scorpene”

    I don’t think they even worth 1 scorpene.
    The ship is still called a pile of steel not a ship. Even the Maharajalela is stiil a pile of steel which is look like a ship.
    Even the Nakhoda Ragam was sold to Indonesia at 1/5 of its original price. The ship was delivered to Indonesia at operational status.
    The case of Brunei vs BAE on Nakhoda Ragam was settled in court before sold to Indonesia.
    It is not a simple as you think.

    Your suggest on spending RM3 billions on Korean hdf 2600 could be right. But, it Will be another story’ after LCS is setlled. I mean, abandoning the LCS and take it as total lost is also a settlement. But, can the gov take the pressure?

  41. @ hafizushi

    seriously we dont have the time to experiment further. we really need those 6 ASW frigates ASAP.

    @ joe

    That delay is from the malaysian side. none from the koreans. Which is why I propose all 6 HDF-2600 to be build in Korea, not malaysia.

    @ romeo

    Brunei case is bought to the courts as brunei claimed the ships is not to what it ordered. They lost of course. The gowinds should just be a straight commercial deal between malaysia and Naval Group.

    My suggestion is for BNS to complete all 6 gowinds as a sailable ship (with engine, bridge systems, IPMS plus the SETIS CMS) without weapons and combat systems installed, that is the condition of the 6 ships to be swapped for 1 scorpene.

    In that way, BNS will settle all gowind related stuff for Naval Group till 2025, while the koreans build the 6 HDF-2600 for TLDM. Then comes RMK13 2026-2030 we can see if BNS is good enough or not to be handed a contract for HDF-2600 batch 2.

  42. @…
    ” propose all 6 HDF-2600 to be build in Korea, not malaysia.”
    Unlikely any politician will support that if it causes our shipyards to lose out in building them.

  43. “I think the best way to reach your target of ship, i believe tldm might have to start ngpv batch 2 or lekiu batch 2”

    Those are not even options. Zero chance of happening.

    Unless we’re to set things back by another few years – on top of other delays – there is no alternative but for the government to allocate the funds needed ro complete the multi role ships which were intended to be the RMN’s most capable.

  44. @…

    Unless you are in Cabinet, it’s really unlikely option 4 will be considered.

    You could try posting your suggestion in Ismail Sabri FB page, it seems that he does read the comments (based on feedback from some guys in other defence pages). Apparently his visit to Boustead was a complete surprise and unannounced.

    Reply
    No lah otherwise the executive chairman won’t be there to greet the minister. It takes about 3 hours to drive from KL to Lumut and about 45 minutes by helicopters. They even had a briefing at the BNS hall.

  45. @ joe

    ” Unlikely any politician will support that if it causes our shipyards to lose out in building them ”

    Desperate times need desperate measures.

    The koreans can build 6 frigates for TLDM. In the meantime BNS can complete the Gowind for follow on resell and to settle all the witch hunt that is being done with the Gowind project.

    Realistically only 2 viable options that can be done within RMK12 2021-2025 to get 6 frigates. IMO just getting 2 ships for additional RM3 billion in RMK12 should not even be an option.

    1) Pay out whatever the ringgit equivalent of USD2.8 billion ceiling price (not the RM9 billion ceilling price) and get on with completing those 6 ships.

    2) Forget about the Gowinds, and pay the Koreans RM3.5 billlion for 6 HDF-2600 Mod and fit out all the paid for weapons we have bought for the gowinds into the new hull. At least we know the koreans will deliver those 6 frigates on time as per contract.

    @ ASM

    Posting on FB is not good for my anonymity and privacy.

  46. @…
    There is nothing that is desperate to a politician other than ratings, how to get finances, and keeping his seat. Oh, and of course climbing up the food chain if they are ambitious enough or smelt blood.

    @ASM
    Nothing a minister does goes unannounced or unprepared, not even a stroll around pasar malam.

  47. On my post, what i mean on ngpv batch 2 doesnt hv to be the same platform as the kedah class

    I partially agree with … on tldm needed more hull but against on stopping the lcs project

  48. @ hafizushi

    ” but against on stopping the lcs project ”

    Not stopping the LCS will probably cause us to get just 2 frigates for a total of RM9 billion (rm6 billion + rm3 billion additional budget ) but with no forseen due date as audits upon audits is done to the project.

    Just abandoning the gowinds now will stop the bleed at RM6 billion, with all the weapons and systems able to be salvaged. Then it can be put into another type of hull, which we need to afford to build 6. Why i pick HDF-2600, as things like Daegu, or even Meko A100 derivatives we cannot have 6 ships for RM3 billion or whereabouts. Even the HDF-2600 i calculated it would be at best around RM3.5 billion for 6 ships with most of the weapons and electronic sensors recovered from the gowind project.

    There is no way we can proceed with both the gowind and a new hull type. we just don’t have the money to do so.

  49. “ngpv batch 2 doesnt hv to be the same platform as the kedah class”

    Then why even bother calling it “NGPV Batch 2”?

    If indeed a new design is selected it will be a new “LCS” which is meant to be the RMN’s primary multi role combatant as opposed to the NGOPV which was intended to be secondary type platform to perform roles various wartime as well as peacetime roles.

    As for the “ Lekiu Batch 2” you mentioned previously; a “Batch 2” will obviously be based on the existing design which is the “Frigate 2000”. It’s a 1990’s design by Yarrow and is hardly in a position (even if BAE Systems still markets it) to be a contender for a new “LCS” can it?

    We can explore various alternatives (the sky’s the limit) which look grand on paper but the harsh reality is that at least the uncompleted hulls will enter service. No chance of any new design being selected in the medium to long term irrespective of the urgency in getting the RNN the capabilities it so badly needs.

  50. Cut the losses,abandon the project while it is still under investigation.Go Turkey , and hopefully there will be little hinderance or built a frigate or covette as u like to call it FFBNW in country if you like,nobody will give a hoot at a FFBNW ship.

  51. The reason i mention ngpv batch 2 or lekiu batch 2 was i dont think RMN can afford similar ship spec and tonnage as current under construction lcs.

    @azlan
    Im sorry for confusion, i was meant we could select for other type for example maybe milgem class or the improve version of gagah samudera class(not build at local) , probably we can by ordering 1 ship for year 2021 and add up another 1 in the next year after that

  52. @ Redsot

    Going Turkey for a complicated piece of equipment and needing them to be completed quickly is difficult to say the least. Their lead MILGEM frigate TCG Istanbul is still in build. They wouldnt have a quick timing now they also have Pakistan and Ukraine MILGEM orders. I dont think they can give a low price like koreans since we have just around RM3 billion or whereabouts to get 6 frigates. Another is integration of foreign parts, as turkey is now slapped with CAATSA ban.

    Things like UAV, say the TB2, if hit by CAATSA, we are more than capable to buy the Rotax 912 engine separately (which is a civilian product anyway) and things like FLIR EO turret and assemble the TB2 in Malaysia, thereby skirting the CAATSA ban. Frigates is a different matter altogether, as to save costs we need to integrate most items we have originally bought for the gowinds into a new hull. To have all turkish systems means we need to pay full costs for them, in that case we wouldnt get 6 frigates for our tiny available budget.

    Reply
    We cannot simply skirt CAATSA like that

  53. @ marhalim

    There is CAATSA embargo to buy russian arms, which we cannot just skirt just like that.

    Then there is a CAATSA embargo to countries that bought russian arms and angered USA, which turkey is.

    Turkey, or specifically The Undersecretariat for Defence Industries (SSM) is now embargoed from buying US made components, which is what i am talking about. This is not about buying russian components which what CAATSA is usually all about.

    Rotax 912 engine is built in Austria, not USA, and it is a civilian product. You can buy those off the shelf from multiple dealers all around the world and ship them to malaysia. That would bypass rotax not wanting to sell those engines to bayraktar.

    FLIR EO turret is a military component under ITAR, but if end user is malaysia and not turkey, and shipped to malaysia, most probably it will pass.

    So turkey can build TB2 airframe and fit it with all turkish parts and ship them to malaysia to be mated to the engine and EO turret. As that is what TB2 is designed in the beginning, no modifications needed.

    So there is 2 different things there.

    But to build a frigate in turkey, and need to fit parts that have components that will need usa approval, to modify the design to fit things it is not designed for in the first place, that is very2 difficult.

    Reply
    Your work around won’t work

  54. @RedSot
    These are intended to be our cutting-edge frontline ships that should remain competitive vis a vis similar peers in the foreseeable future. Going for cheaper but inferior Turk or Korean frigates would do us a great injustice. If we urgently want hulls in water, simply get 2nd hand frigates from US or UK.

  55. @ marhalim

    frigate workaround wont work (and i never say it will anyway)

    uav probably will. turkey already have its own EO turret in development, or we can use ITAR free items. Engine workaround is easily done as the engines can be commercially bought off the shelf.

    @ joe

    6 “inferior” korean frigates with all the gowind weapons, towed array sonars, radars and what not is way better than just 2 “superior” gowind frigates.

  56. “Im sorry for confusion,”

    There is no “confusion”. You mentioned NGPV and Lekiu Batcg 2s and I mentioned why those options are not options; in that they won’t even be considered.

    “i was meant we could select for other type for example maybe milgem class”

    As it stands there is zero intention to select a new design or to embark on a new programme to compensate for the LCS cockup.
    A lot of things are possible on paper (the sky’s the limit) but we have to be realistic. The RMN will either get some or all 6 LCSs; eventually. Any new design or programme is years into the future.

  57. @ azlan

    ” A lot of things are possible on paper ”

    That is very true. Even if it is a very long shot, IMO options that is better than what the government is looking at should be laid out to show what alternative that can be taken instead.

    We dont have a think tank like RAND in USA for this. If we all can chip in whatever little idea we have here, if it is taken up, it is all for the betterment of our country.

    So if you and others have any alternative ideas, lets put it out. If even 1 idea out of 10 is taken up, it is better than 0.

    At least now something like the LCA/LIFT is now a go, instead of unaffordable Rafales or Typhoons.

  58. @…
    I prefer 6 superior French frigates, even if they are late, thank you very much.

    About CAATSA, if it were so easy to work around it, the US wouldn’t have bothered to enforce it.

  59. Depends entirely on which country it is and what’s being bought. The Yanks for their own interests will be very selective in enforcing CAATSA. They will overlook it if it’s in their interests to do so and enforce it if they see a need; depending on the circumstances.

  60. @ joe

    WIth just RM3 billion or whereabouts to spend, you are not going to get your 6 French frigates. Kalau kita ada duit as I said before, our only problem and concern would be how fast we can complete those 6 Gowinds, and no need to talk about alternatives. In reality, we just dont have the money to complete all 6 gowinds. Which is why we are talking about this problem. All comes down to money.

    CAATSA depends. As i said, this is about country hit by CAATSA because buying russian and blocked to buy american, not the usual we cannot buy russian CAATSA stuff.

    If complicated stuff like frigates, yes hard. But if just 2 items and even then, 1 item is a commercial civilian part not even made in USA, no issues.

  61. … – “is. If we all can chip in whatever little idea we have here, if it is taken”

    By all means do carry on. Nobody’s stopping you or anyone else.

    By the same token; nobody’s stopping me from giving my opinions of “alternatives” presented by others; as to whether they’re feasible in the overall context of things.

    …. “So if you and others have any alternative ideas, lets put it out”

    I’ll leave that you and others.

    With regards to the LCS: the reality is that some of the hulls or eventually all of them will get a “KD” prefix; which is why I haven’t bothered to personally present any alternatives; which although look grand on paper are not even being considered.

    … – “We dont have a think tank like RAND in USA for this”

    No but the armed services do have planning divisions whose job it is to make assessments based on projected requirements and suitability and for certain things we do hire the services of consultants. On up if that; the National Defence University/College as well as other places of higher learning do give their input.

    … – “At least now something like the LCA/LIFT is now a go, instead of unaffordable Rafales or Typhoons.”

    We hope the decisions we make are the right ones. If we turn out to be wrong and face a situation where our limited numbers of MRCAs and the equally limited numbers of LCAs don’t cut it because of the threat level and because of operational requirements where we have to maintain a certain tempo: we’ll rue the day when we didn’t make MRCAs a priority. And vice versa.

    Of course ….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*