SHAH ALAM: Its confirmed now, the SGPV, formally the NGPV and known in Mindef now as LCS, is to be the first project under RMK10. Six billion for six ships means a cool billion for a single ship. A fairly steep price for a corvette and as VR pointed out earlier that for the same amount RMN could be getting
” 8 of the new Korean Gumdoksuri PKX fast missile corvettes, or 8 LPD similar to the Indonesian Makassar class, or 3 of Spains’s Buques de Acción Marítima (BAM -maritime action ship) OPV… Is RMN/Malaysia getting a good deal out of our nation’s money?? ”
Yes, we maybe getting a smaller number of ships but as they like to point out it will be a boon for our defence industry. What about the Navy then?
From the two reports on the issue, Bernama and Utusan, no military reason was given why the Government was funding such a huge project.
Perhaps both reporters found it too complicated to write about the military reasons for buying the six ships for RM6 billion but I guess there wasnt much on the table in the first place. And its not as sexy as saying that some 632 local contractors will benefit from the project.
By the way, the Absalon MRSS is cheap as the Danes used second-hand weapon systems on the two ships. We dont have the luxury. Of course, RM6 billion is not set in stone. Based on recent history, we will be spending much more….
What others are saying about the deal. Here and Here Dzirhan take on the issue. Here
–Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (32)
And it remains to be seen if the LCS or SGPV's [I get confused!]really will be mounted with a VLS SAM, 4 Exocets and 2 triple torp tubes.
The folks at the treasury will probably start having ulcers soon as in 2-3 years time, the RMN will most probably be pressing the need for additional Lynx's to operate from the LCS/SGPV...
At these prices, should a conflict erupt, who wants to bet that the navy would try to hide them away as opposed to actually use them? No navy chief wants to go down in history as being the one who lost a billion dollar ship. The Pakistani and Argentinian navy chiefs did exactly that (hide their precious warships)during the Indo-Pak and Falkland conflicts. So what good are they really?
Marhalim, why did the National Security Council insist on using military-registration Charlies for the Egypt evacuation? Haven\'t they learnt from previous overseas missions that the bureacratic redtape increases exponentially once military aircraft are involved? For instance, it was a full five days before the SMART team flying in on Charlies were on the ground after the Pakistan earthquake. By that time, rescue teams from other coutries who flew in on civillian planes, were already packing up to go home.
Reply: No idea. I am guessing its easier to call up Jalan Padang Tembak than Mr Fernandes and MAS. But anyhow, both AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines came into the game one day after the Hercules were sent to Egypt. That is why I said its important for RMAF to have a couple of MRTT around for this sort of emergencies.....
LOL RM 1 Billion for a PV??? Anyway, 632 local contractors will be benefited sound kinda super sexy to me.
linking to an article that compares a \"East Timor paid US$28 million for the 1960s-designed, 175-tonne Shanghai class boats\", a coast guard cutter and a small OPV as an apple to apple comparison seems a bit irresponsible to me, when you yourself calls the so-called boats a corvette eh? And with a little research, maybe you could have found the so-called military reason to fund such a project instead of taking the easy way out...let me give you a small link that may partially explain why it is being funded... http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=553069
Reply: There is no need for me to state the military reason for it. It is the job of the Kementerian Pertahanan. As for the link as I mentioned its what others have to say about it. If a layman compares an apple to an orange it is not my fault. By calling these ships a PV the powers that be set themselves up for the comparison...
Well it wasn\'t the Kementerian Pertahanan who asked why there was no reason given for the funding. And as you well know reporters usually reports what is in the press release and the Kementerian may not see any reason why they should repeat themselves.
Perhaps the links are what others are talking about but why do I feel they are linked to support your assertions ... Is it too complicated to find opinions that are for the project also?
Reply: Those articles are linked to show that defence procurements have become a punching bag against the government. If we choose to ignore these voices, we may end up like Egypt and Tunisia. And when you buy things that cost billions and with the future of the Armed Forces at stake, explain, explain, explain and then explain.
is there any b/w confirmation that the navy will get the add on funnel NGPV????? is there any words or sentence that point on that design?????
remember, a secret is a secret, untill we dont have any words about the design, we cant say nothing about it.......
Reply: As of yesterday, there was still no confirmation of anything proposed by Boustead for the new ship. However, if you checked my earlier posting, Lima 2009, you will see a model of the proposed SGPV and some further explaination on the ship. You will also find out that Thysenkrup, the German shipbuilder had also proposed an add-on funnel for the new boat. If you clicked on the Utusan link in the original story, there will be a picture of a model of the SGPV. I believed its the same model that was shown during Lima and DSA 2008. The information I provided here is always open source, so discussions are encouraged....
I agree we should buy Airbus A310/A330 MRTT instead.No need to second MRCA or batch 2 frigate that cost fortunes but focus more to buy military asset that can utilise for humanitarian aid such as MPSS, multirole helos etc.
Strikemaster,
There is no way to predict how anyone would perform or what actions they would take should an armed conflict arise. Granted having a ''fleet in being'' is as good as having no fleet at all but the Pakis and Argentine's in 71 and 82 had valid reasons for making the choice's they did with regards to preserving their fleet. On paper, the LCS/SGPV's should cost more as they will be ''fitted with'' and not ''fitted for'' missiles, torpedo tubes and a ASW sonar.
With regards to the proposed design, it really depends on which foreign partner is selected. If DCNS is selected I doubt if the design will look anything like the Kedah class. I'm very surprised the Kedah's are smoky on account of having no funnel/stack, as I would have assumed that a shipbuilder as experienced as Blohm & Voss would have done their homework.
touche! that was what I want to hear.
My original comment that triggered this post
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/?p=1327#comment-127915
To me RM6Billion is too much to be spend on just 6 patrol ships, when you can get fully armed corvettes/frigates for much less. If RM6Billion is gobbled up by only 6ship, what funding is left for the LPD requirement? Frigate?
As for the Absalon MRSS, only the stanflex modules for the 16x(yes, sixteen!) harpoon SSM and 36x ESSM SAM and their associated fire control systems are second hand (from the retired Flyvefisken ships). So a large 6000tonne displacement multi purpose warship for the price of 1 SGPV is very2 value for money...