I am a big fan of Coast Guard ships, and a big fan of Naval ships. I wish the Malaysian Coast Guard all the best with this ship, but for certain, 'as is', it is no corvette warship, and definitely would not meet Canada's naval needs for a Corvette.
Not in the slightest.
My understanding is a Canadian military officer has already noted they want the Canadian Continental Corvette to have sensors/armament approximating that of the Halifax class frigates.
I recently discovered I am not allowed to paste links here ... (as a previous post of mine had a link to the source of the purported $5-billion budget for the Canadian Continental corvette removed) so let me just note some information on this Malaysian Coast Guard ship, (and again, I wish Malaysia all the very best):
Malaysian Multi Purpose Mission Coast Guard Ship - no expensive weapons embarked:
- single 30mm forward, and two 12.7mm on top of the rear hanger (aft port/starboard)
- no air defence missiles
- no anti-ship missile
- no towed array sonar , nor any VDS
- no anti-torpedo measures
- no ECM visible in models (ie no chaff/ir launchers, no ECM air-drone (like LEED/Nulka), no on-board ECM (ie jammer/deceptive repeater).
So it has no air defence capability, and no ASW capability. It has no anti-surface missile capability. It has minor anti-drone capability with its 30mm but as a point-defense close-in-weapon system, that is incredibly limited.
That Malaysian ship is for a Coast Guard, ... not for a navy. Not for a naval corvette.
Note that its the weapons & sensors that drive up warship cost and this Malaysian coast guard ship has minimal armament and none of the more capable sensors (especially re:ASW sensors). It a coast guard ship, which explains the lower cost. Weapons and sensors can easily double or triple or quadruple the cost of a warship .
To re-iterate, as a Coast Guard ship, for Malaysia - I think this is good and I wish Malaysian Coast Guard the very best. ... But let us not confuse this with a warship.