Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) update
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
Sharing the same design as the RMN Kasturi class light frigates, the Colombian navy's 4
FS-1500 frigates will undergo a US300 million SLEP by Thales and DCNS. Unlike the Kasturi class frigates, the Colombian frigates will be fitted with a short range anti-air system, the SADRAL, and will receive a new radar. Prior the SLEP contract being awarded to Thales, the Kasturi class was fitted a few years ago with the DRS-300 ESM to replace the Cutlass ESM and 8 MM-40s to replace the 4 MM-38s. Both will also be fitted with a Mirador electro-optical sight. It has not been revealed if the Schmitar jammer will be retained on the Kasturi class.
In a 3rd December article in the Malay Mail by Marhalim Abbas [malaysiandefence] on a
2nd batch of NGOPVs, Thyssen Krupp said that based on feedback from the RMN, it had included a traditional stack on the design of the 2nd batch of NGOPVs. In the first NGOPV batch, a stack was not incluced in the design by Blohm & Voss, to reduce IR signature.
FS-1500 frigates will undergo a US300 million SLEP by Thales and DCNS. Unlike the Kasturi class frigates, the Colombian frigates will be fitted with a short range anti-air system, the SADRAL, and will receive a new radar. Prior the SLEP contract being awarded to Thales, the Kasturi class was fitted a few years ago with the DRS-300 ESM to replace the Cutlass ESM and 8 MM-40s to replace the 4 MM-38s. Both will also be fitted with a Mirador electro-optical sight. It has not been revealed if the Schmitar jammer will be retained on the Kasturi class.
In a 3rd December article in the Malay Mail by Marhalim Abbas [malaysiandefence] on a
2nd batch of NGOPVs, Thyssen Krupp said that based on feedback from the RMN, it had included a traditional stack on the design of the 2nd batch of NGOPVs. In the first NGOPV batch, a stack was not incluced in the design by Blohm & Voss, to reduce IR signature.
Last edited:
Instead of comparing the RMN OPV with S.African Navy frigates in terms of costs per ship and the firepower, why not compare the roles of the two classes of ships. The frigates are full comabtant ships while the OPV are primarily use for patrol duties. However, the OPV have ample space for upgrades into full-combat capable ships when needed. Instead of comparing the OPV as a less capable ship, do consider the ships as one of the most advanced patrol vessels in the region. Anyway, the design and contruction rights of the OPV was handed over to Malaysia as the country could build and modify ships at their own discretion. This is important as in times of war, shipbuilding industry must be able to self-substain by building new ships and repair damaged ones. So I'm not surprised that Malaysia construct the OPV, which the class will form the backbone of the RMN fleet. Usually, patrol vessels are lightly armed with defensive weapons, only to be modified to carry more weaopns when the need arise, just like the Singapore navy patrol vessels. The vessels could be armed with Gabriel missiles and other weapon systems.
Winning a war is not all about having ships that have advanced technology and weapon systems. I can have a navy without any frigates, OPV or missile corvettes. All I need is to launch hundreds of small attack craft, each armed with multiple rocket launchers against the enemy frigates, destroyers or even carriers. I can afford to loose all the attack craft, but can the enemy afford to loose their warships that cost them billions???
I think you need to investigate modern naval capabilities a bit if you think these sorts of swarm tactics are going to be effective. What makes you think a modern navy is even going to deploy its forces in such a configuration that the linear nature of a swarm attack becomes applicable? How will your tiny vessels make up for the massive disadvantage they have in terms of sensors, defences, and all the rest? If you're just going to fill them with rockets is there going to be room for anything else? What's the effective range of these craft and their weapons?
And can you really afford to lose all those attack craft, as you put it? You just inferred they comprise your entire navy?
Last edited:
lol yep. The Naval commander leading this 'Navy' would have to have outstanding 'people skills'.
"Cmon guys get in the boats. Get in. You have enough fuel to get you there but not enough to get you back. On the positive side you have oodles of rockets. Go nuts when you get there! Take your waterproof jackets as swells are at 70-80 feet at wind force 9. Good luck gentlemen. Do it for your country.
I dont have any estimates of survivability or recoverability on me right now......Oh but if you make it home, pucker up, because we will do it all again tomorrow!"
Last edited:
Ok... to elaborate more, I shall discuss more abt the advantages of small attack craft. Each rocket-armed attack craft has a crew of just 8 - 13 and carries up to 400 rockets of 800m range. It is 12-18m long and cruise at max speed of 45 knots. If I send 100 such crafts to attack a fleet of destroyers, how effective can the destroyers defend themselves against the enemy attack craft. Perhaps 80% of the ships would be sunk before even fired the first shot but what abt the other 20%, which means 20 enemy crafts. I can ensure you that if the destroyers are not equipped with the goalkeeper CIWS, the chances of 100% enemy kills and 0% damage is virtually 'nll'. Most radars could detect small craft at only up to 8km, and at this distance, the crafts will take only 7 minutes to reach the fleet at max speed. Try engaging all of the 100 enemy boats cruising at 40-45 knots towards you before they come within range and fire their rockets!!!
Of course not those handlheld type but high-explosive types that can penetrate the hull. The craft, when hit, could still ram into the enemy destroyers to cause max damage. New replacement craft could be build and put into service within a matter of days or weeks at super cheap cost.
Of course not those handlheld type but high-explosive types that can penetrate the hull. The craft, when hit, could still ram into the enemy destroyers to cause max damage. New replacement craft could be build and put into service within a matter of days or weeks at super cheap cost.
You have mentioned the advantages but not the disadvantages of FACs/small attack craft.
In the scenario you provided you assume that a certain navy will be able to mass undetected a large fleet of FACs against an enemy fleet that is operating without air cover and early warning. What will happen if these FACs are detected early and are engaged by shipborne helicpters or worst - fighters with longer range stanoff missiles? FACs suffer from 2 major disavantages the inability to defend themselves against air threats [the first Gulf War and the Kriegsmarine S-Boots in WW2 are a good example] and the actual problem of locating targets. Whether it was in the North Sea or the English channel what spelt the end of the S-boots were Allied aircraft and early detection.
To be effective FACs have to be used in conjunction with other assets such as MPAs or larger vessels to provide targeting. Even then FACs are meant to be used to hit unescorted vessels or to threaten chokepoints using the element of surprise [this was the whole rationale of operating FACs as practised by the Bundesmarine and other navies during the Cold War. The Iranians have adopted the swarm tactic due the weakness of their navy and to cope with the operating enviroment in the Sraits of Hormuz]. Other factors such as a low horizon as a result of a low freeboard and execessive vibration has also been known to be a problem and have effected the sensors on FACs.
As you mentioned in theory a fleet of FACs are able to use swarm tactics against a fleet of larger vessels assuming they can locate their targets and they have the element of surprise.
Last edited:
But what sort of modern navy is going to come rushing at you with "a fleet of destroyers"? In modern warfare the destroyers will be part of an integrated warfighting force that includes far more than just carbon copies of itself.
You can't analyse real-life war scenarios by saying "10 of unit X is better than 1 of unit Y" because that's not how militaries operate.
You mentioned earlier this tactic was a valid response to warships that cost "billions", therefore I will assume the technological advantage lies with them. And the battle won't be happening in a vacuum with only the combatants you describe. What about the rest of the military resources implied by an opponent who can afford billions of dollars worth of naval assets? What is their air support doing while this fleet of speedboats comes barrelling toward their naval resources? What about their ISR coverage? How are your boats even going to FIND their fleet? They're not just going to come steaming toward your coastline in formation you know. Why should they? The modern destroyer has weapons with ranges measured in the hundreds of kilometres.
How do you extend to their warfighting distances in boats as small as you describe?
I would think the issue of whether their vessels are equipped with a CIWS or not will be the least of your worries when you get those small attack vessels out on the open sea with bugger-all radar horizon between them and presumably limited range considering they're weighed down with rocket batteries and you're flogging them at 45 knots.
And I mention again, because I feel this is the most important point: a modern naval opponent is NOT realistically just going to send a "fleet of destroyers" to come knocking on your door. It will be a modern integrated taskforce combining multiple platform types and resources, and not all of them will be limited to surface or even seaborne operations. Your fleet of speedboats contains only a limited response to a single kind of threat - another weakness that will be exploited.
Okay, I agree what you mentioned are true. The FAC have such problems but navies with small craft wouldn't use them in open seas. What I'm trying to say is small craft have certain advantages over larger vessels. Large vessels are meant for survival but small boats are for destruction. Most navies in Asia have limited air power except helicopter-carrying frigates and destroyers. Other than these helicopters, what aerial threats can the FAC probably encounter?The FACs usually operate in their own waters in own waters, not in the high seas. It is true that FACs have limited detection capabilities but these can be substitute by land-based installations, which have more than 200 miles detection range. In WWII, the allies had hundreds of warships and aircraft but why the Japanese Kamikaze still managed to score hits on carriers? It can prove difficult to defend against large numbers of enemy aircraft/ship, even with advanced weaponry. Okay, anyway, how effective a fleet of FACs can operate against larger vessels depends on the tactics the commanders use and whether the element of surprise have been achieved. This can be done by hiding among larger vessels to avoid detection and fire when within range or launch mass attack when enemy appear over the horizon. No matter how advance a warship can be, it is always a challenge to have 100% effective defence against small targets.
One event to note is about the somali pirates. They are just like the FACs defending the Gulf of Aden with limited firepower. They attack ships that intrude into their waters. How did they do it? They are using small boats and some even sampans! Main reason is they operate off their own territory and the priates have planned ahead of their activities in the region.
One event to note is about the somali pirates. They are just like the FACs defending the Gulf of Aden with limited firepower. They attack ships that intrude into their waters. How did they do it? They are using small boats and some even sampans! Main reason is they operate off their own territory and the priates have planned ahead of their activities in the region.
@tkjun, sorry about butting in. And I'm often as guilty of going off topic...
Your discussion is no longer about what is to be acquired by the RMN nor is your discussion applicable to existing concerns of the RMN as it has drifted into a generalised discussion on the usefulness and limitations of FACs in swarming attacks.
For the purposes of this thread (which is on the RMN's capabilities and shortfalls), perhaps you should stop your discussion here. If you are really interested in a discussion on FACs (and there is no news that RMN is looking at acquiring new FACs), could you consider initiating that discussion by starting a new thread and you guys can flesh out your differences there?
Your discussion is no longer about what is to be acquired by the RMN nor is your discussion applicable to existing concerns of the RMN as it has drifted into a generalised discussion on the usefulness and limitations of FACs in swarming attacks.
For the purposes of this thread (which is on the RMN's capabilities and shortfalls), perhaps you should stop your discussion here. If you are really interested in a discussion on FACs (and there is no news that RMN is looking at acquiring new FACs), could you consider initiating that discussion by starting a new thread and you guys can flesh out your differences there?
Last edited:
Very true. With regards to combatants the priority of the RMN are a second batch of NGOPVs and additional frigates. There is no requirement for additional FACs. In coming years the 16 FACs [Handalan' Perdana and Jerong class] will be replaced totally by the Kedah class NGOPVs.
I am waiting for RMN to upgrade the Kedah Class with SAM and ASM. Second batch could wait still.
secondly the SLEP on selected RMN ship with SAM such as MANPADS and replacing secondary gun with CIWS.
This shall ensure that all RMN ship have limited SAM capabilities, which is a must now days.
There is no point for us to built second batch OPV or Jebat II when we have 8 ship that have no SAM and 6 ship that have no ASM at all.
I seriously doubt any one of you rockets can penetrate the steel of any destroyer or carrier. your tiny boats will be blown to pieces by the Guns and cannons on the destroyers and frigates and corvettes which make up their secondary armament. these guns are computer controlled and they dont miss, they were developed to take on small crafts. Since your boats are small they will lack targetting systems especially if you have 400 rocets( all the space will be taken up) this means that about 67% of your rockets will miss their target. The large ships are very maneuverable despite their size. and if you try to take on carriers of 40000 tonnage even a 1000 of your boats will not be able to do any thing. the air craft and Hellos won the carrier will grind your boats. I mean any large ship can just ram your boats to destroy them. Also if your boats are small then the 400 rocets will have to be very small and this again brings us back to the penetration part. if the rockets are large then your boats will excede the size of a missile boat. A missile boat would be more effective as it has 4 or more effective SSMs to take out destroyers and frigates with in 3000 tonnage.
Can we go back to discussing what the RMN needs? Can we steer away from a purely hypothetical scenario (as this is a thread on the Malaysian navy)? If you want to talk about FACs and their limitations, please start a new thread. Further, T.C.P da Devil, some links to back up your claims in future, would be nice and remember to insert paragraphs to increase readability. Reading and thinking before posting -- would help stimulate your personal growth and encourage informed discussions with other forum members.
There is no requirement at the moment to replace the Laksamana class. Though they were built in the late 80s, 2 of the Laksamanas have had their CMS upgraded and the whole class has been fitted with a new jammer.
The main requirement now is for a 2nd batch of Kedah class OPVs and a new Multi Role Supply Ship [according to Marhalim Abbas in malaysiandefence, a scale downed version of the Dokdo has been selected] . What is interesting about the Kedah class project is that DCNS has been reported as a possible alternative to the German Naval Group.
Suprising no 1 talked abut this.
Malaysia says first submarine unable to dive | Navy News at Defense Talk
I wonder what part is it that is found to be faulty. It sure is not a good PR for DCNS and Navantia. Probably Altantuya curse showing its effect....
But seriously these kind of problem shouldn't have surfaced being that its brand new and its made by a european consortium. Very dissapointing IMO.
Malaysia says first submarine unable to dive | Navy News at Defense Talk
I wonder what part is it that is found to be faulty. It sure is not a good PR for DCNS and Navantia. Probably Altantuya curse showing its effect....
But seriously these kind of problem shouldn't have surfaced being that its brand new and its made by a european consortium. Very dissapointing IMO.
Far from being an expert I think teething problems in any newly delivered sub or ship is expected. Whether it's really a defect or a minor teething problem remains to be seen. If I recall correctly, the RMN isn't the only navy to have had teething/technical problems with a newly delivered European made sub.